Protestant  Episcopal  Churcl'' 
in  the  U.S.A.   Diocese  of   5 
NeT-7  «^ersey         r 


,v5-fq7 


,  ote&ta.«+    fclpiscopf  the   'J.b.rt, 

D'.Q  "ericy, 

^"^1^0         A      REPORT    /f^ 


•B^^ 


SAYINGS     AND     DOINGS 


SPECIAL    CONVENTION 


OF    THE 


DIOCESE  OF  NEW  JERSEY, 


TRINITY  CHURCH,  NEWARK, 


On  WedxXesday,  Octobeb  27th,  1852. 


NEWARK  : 

PRINTED  AT  THE  OFFICE  OP  THE  DAILY  ADVERTISER. 

1852. 


REPORT. 


At  the  close  of  the  usual  religious  services,  the  Bishop  took  the 
Chair  as  President  of  the  Convention.  The  Rev.  A.  B.  Paterson  and 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Boggs  also  took  their  places  as  Secretaries. 

The  Bishop  then  read  his  address  to  the  Convention ;  bat  as  it  is 
understood  that  it  will  he  printed  in  the  Journal,  it  is  deemed  un- 
necessary to  report  it  here. 

Rev.  Mr.  Southakd — The  Committee  are  ready,  Sir,  to  present 
their  Report. 

The  Bishop — The  Report  of  the  Committee,  appointed  to  wait  on 
the  Court  of  Bishops,  is  now  in  order. 

Hereupon,  Mr.  Southakd  read  a  lengthy  document,  which,  being 
in  print,  the  Reporter  did  not  follow, 

Mr.  J.  J.  Chetwood — I  now  propose  for  adoption  the  following 
Preamble  and  Resolutions. 

[As  these  were  temporarily  withdrawn,  and  occur  under  a  re?iewal  of 
the  motion  in  a  subsequent  part  of  this  Report,  (p.  — ,)  they  are  not  in- 
serted  here.'\ 

Rev.  Mr.  Lowell — If  my  place  have  any  value.  Reverend  Father, 
to  myself  or  others,  it  is  because  it  gives  me  opportunity  to  speak 
freely,  whenever  right  and  truth  demand  it.  In  this  case,  there  are 
interests  involved  and  principles  of  truth  at  risk,  so  mighty  and  nio- 
mentous,  that  I  could  not  be  silent,  if  I  would. 

Mr.  Joel  W.  Condit — 1  wish  to  call  the  gentleman  to  order. 

It  being  urged  that  the  acceptance  of  the  Report  of  the  C'omniittee 
was  the  next  business  properly  in  order,  the  Kev.  Mr.  Lowell  yielded  ; 
and  Mr.  Chetwood,  having  withdrawn  the  Preamble  and  Resolutions 
offered  by  him,  moved.  That  the  Report  of  the  Commitee,  as  read 
before  the  Convention,  be  now  accepted.  The  motion  was  sec- 
onded. 

Rev.  Mr.  Sherman — I  have  a  word  to  say  against  the  acceptance 
of  this  Report.  There  are  important  reasons  why  it  should  not  be 
received,  in  its  present  shape.  The  Committee  have  manifestly  tran- 
scended their  powers.  They  have  traversed  ground  not  contemplated 
in  their  appointment,  and  are  reporting  to  us  concerning  matters 
•which  were  never  assigned  to  them — matters  which  were  not  evea 
known  to  the  Convention  of  July — matters  which  had  not  transpired, 
at  the  time  when  the  Committee  was  raised.  Their  Report  goes  too 
far,  and  includes  extraneous  subject  matter — I  mean  matter  extrane- 

'863351' 

NMvaaHiiro 


ous  to  the  scope  of  their  commission — which  comes  not  within  the 
purview  of  their  appointment,  and  which,  as  a  Committee,  they  had 
no  right  to  enter  upon  and  discuss,  as  they  have  done.  The  Report 
as  it  stands  presented,  is  objectionable,  and  ought  on  no  account  to 
be  accepted  entire. 

Hon.  J.  W.  Miller — I  raise  the  question  of  order,  as  to  whether 
any  debate  is  admissible  upon  the  simple  motion  to  accept  the  Report. 
Discussion  of  the  substance  of  the  Report  can  only  properly  come 
in,  when  the  motion  occurs  upon  its  adoption.  The  motion  now,  is 
not  to  adopt,  but  merely  to  accept  the  Committee's  Report — that  it  may 
thus  pass  from  their  hands  to  the  Convention.  By  parliam<^ntary 
rules,  it  cannot  be  considered  in  order,  to  discuss  what  is  contained 
in  the  Report  or  any  part  of  it,  except  upon  the  main  question  of  its 
adoption.     The  motion  to  merely  accept  is  not  debateable. 

Rev.  Mil.  Sherman — It  was  not  my  purpose  to  enter  upon  the 
merits  of  the  question.  It  is  against  receiving  the  Committee's  Re- 
port that  I  object ;  because  it  goes  beyond  what  was  referred  to 
them,  and  includes  other  matter  than  that  which  was  contemplated  in 
their  appointment.  And  with  all  due  respect  to  the  opinion  of  the 
honorable  gentleman  who  has  questioned  it,  I  believe  it  to  be  in  strict 
accordance  with  parliamentary  usage,  when  a  Committee  has  tran- 
scended its  powers  by  the  introduction  of  extraneous  subject  matter, 
to  meet  the  case  at  once  under  the  motion  to  accept  their  Report,  and 
exclude  such  irrelevant  matter  from  the  accptance.  [Cries  of  "  or- 
der."] 

Mr.  Archer  Gifford — The  objection  of  the  Rev.  gentleman  is 
undoubtedly  in  order,  and  offered  in  the  proper  place.  In  my  opinion 
he  is  right  and  perfectly  in  order.  His  objection  strikes  me  as  forci- 
ble ;  and  if  it  is  to  have  any  effect  at  all,  it  must  come  forward  now. 

Mr.  Cortlandt  Parker — Certainly.  There  can  be  no  question 
about  its  being  in  order;  and  if  the  Committee  have  reported  upon 
other  matters  than  those  referred  to  them,  (as  seems  to  be  the  case,) 
we  ought  not  to  accept  these  parts  of  their  Report. 

Hon.  William  Halsted — I  am  opposed  to  the  whole  Report  of 
the  Committee — not  only  to  what  they  have  done  over  and  above 
their  instructions:  but  I  object  to  the  whole  of  it.  For  they  have  put 
forth  sentiments  in  that  document,  which  are  contrary  to  the  Canons 
and  principles  of  the  Church,  and  there  are  several  statements  in  it 
which  are  not  true.  I  want  the  facts  to  be  stated  as  they  are,  and  I 
shall  oppose  the  acceptance  of  this  Report  altogether,  because  it  con- 
tains what  is  false.     [Cries  of  "  order,  order."] 

Mr.  Ryall — I  beg  to  suggest  to  the  gentleman  from  St,  Michael's, 
that  the  question  is  not  now  upon  the  adoption  of  the  Report ;  it  is 
only  that  we  should  receive  it,  in  order  that  the  Committee  may  be 
discharged.  When  it  is  proposed  to  adopt  the  report,  which  will  be 
afterwards,  then  gentlemen  can  have  an  opportunity  of  discussing  the 
merits  of  it,  and  rejecting  it  if  they  see  fit.  We  must  in  the  first 
place  accept  it  ;  and  i  believe  it  is  always  customary  to  do  so,  in  or- 
der to  have  it  before  us,  for  it  is  not  proper  to  act  upon  it  till  it  is  ac- 
cepted. 

Mr.  J.  J.  CriETWooD — The  Report  of  the  Committee  must  be  re- 
ceived before  it  can  be  acted  on.  The  whole  that  has  been  said  is  out 
of  order  till  after  the  Report  is  accepted.     Gentlemen   need  not  be 


afraid  of  committing  themselves  by  voting  for  it ;  for  they  can  vote  to 
receive  it,  and  then  vote  against  adopting  it.  The  acceptance  is  only 
a  formal  thing  in  the  course  of  business. 

Hox.  Jamks  Parker — lam  satisfied  that  an  acceptance  of  this 
Report  is  something  more  than  a  mere  form.  If  we  accept  it,  we 
subscribe  in  some  sense  to  its  sentiments,  and  become  responsible  for 
taking  them  off  the  hands  of  the  Committee  upon  ourselves,  which  I 
cannot  consent  to.  There  are  many  tilings  in  the  Report  which  I 
cannot  subscribe  to,  and  I  claim  the  right  to  speak  my  mind,  and  give 
my  reasons.     [Cries  of  "  question."] 

The  Bishop — It  is  out  of  order  to  speak  upon  the  Report  till  the 
Convention  have  received  it.  I  do  not  wish  to  cut  short  any  discus- 
sion, in  its  proper  place.  When  the  motion  occurs  to  adopt,  I  shall 
be  willing  to  hear  what  may  be  said. 

Judge  Ogden — I  hope  this  will  satisfy  all.    lean  assure  them  that   ■ 
there  is  no  intention  of  stifling  debate.     We  shall  willingly  listen  to 
a  full  discussion  when  the  Report  is  taken  up  for  adoption. 

Mu.  Walter  Ruthef^furd — That  is  all  we  want.  If  it  is  under- 
stood that  the  whole  subject  is  to  be  open  for  free  discussion,  we  are 
satisfied.  All  we  ask  is  for  freedom  of  debate,  and  liberty  to  express 
our  opinions. 

The  Bishop — That  you  can  do,  when  tlie  Report  is  accepted,  un- 
der the  motion  for  adoption. 

Rev.  Mr.  Sherjian — I  now  wish  to  renew  the  point  of  objection 
which  I  raised  at  the  beginning,  but  from  which  there  has  been,  in 
most  of  the  subsequent  remarks  which  have  been  made,  a  broad  di- 
vergence. It  was  neither  my  wish  nor  intention,  in  objecting  to  the 
motion  of  acceptance,  to  open  discussion  upon  the  general  merits  of 
the  Report  as  presented,  and  I  am  not  aware  of  having  myself  so 
touched  upon  it.  The  ground  of  my  objecting  was  this :  that  the 
Committee  had  transcended  their  powers — that  tlioy  had  traversed 
ground  not  assigned  to  them,  and  had  incorporated  in  their  Report 
matters  not  referred  to  them — matters  which  had  not  then  transpired, 
at  the  time  of  their  appointment.  The  receiving  or  acceptance  of 
this  part  of  their  Report,  is  what  I  object  to.  They  have  clearly 
transcended  their  appointment.  They  have  not  only  attended  to  the 
special  business  delegated  to  them  by  the  Convention  and  discharged 
themselves  of  tliat,  but  they  seem  to  have  considered  themselves  as  a 
kind  of  general  Committee  of  Safety  for  the  Bishop,  with  a  sort  of 
roving  commission  to  do  anything  and  everything  that  might  serve  his 
interests:  and  they  have  gone  out  of  the  waj^  to  discuss  specifications 
in  a  Presentment  which  hiid  not  even  been  made  when  the  Committee 
was  appointed.  I  submit  therefore  that  they  have  transcended  their 
powers  ;  and  that  so  much  only  of  their  Report  as  relates  to  the  sub- 
ject matter  referred  to  them,  should  be  accepted.  It  is  against  tha 
receiving,  as  a  part  of  their  Report  these  matters,  which  are  extra- 
neous, that  I  protest.  To  bring  my  objection  to  the  point,  however,  I 
wish  to  move  an  amendment  to  the  motion,  or  a  substitute  for  it — to 
accept  that  part  of  the  Report — (if  I  cr-uld  be  furnished  with  the  doc- 
ument, I  will  indicate  the  particular  matters  to  be  excluded) — [a  copy 
of  the  Report  teas  here  handed  to  the  speaker.']  I  now  move  as  an 
amendment  or  substitute,  that  that  portion  of  the  Report  of  the  Com  - 


6 

mittee  as  read,  which  precedes  the  first  occurrence  of  the  terras  of 
address,  "  Right  Reverend  Fathers,"  be  accepted. 

The  Bishop — The  amendment  is  not  in  order. 

Rev.  Mr.  Sherman — Is  that  the  decision  of  the  Chair? 

The  Bishop- -It  is.     'Jlie  motion  is  not  in  order. 

Rkv.  Mr.  Shkrman — Then  I  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  Chair, 
if  it  is  ruled  that  such  appeal  is  in  order.  The  Rules  of  Order  as  es- 
tablished by  the  Convention  do  not  formally  and  expressly  recognize 
the  right  of  appeal;  and  the  construclioji  wh\ch  has  prevailed  here, 
has  been,  that  upon  all  questions  of  order  the  decision  of  the  Chair  is 
final.  I  press  the  point,  therefore;  Is  an  appeal  to  the  house,  from  a 
decision  of  the  Chair,  allowaMe  under  the  Rules  of  Order  ? 

The  Bishop — An  appeal  is  not  in  order  under  the  Rule ;  but  I  am 
"willing  to  entertain  it,  and  will  put  the  question. 

Rev.  Mr.  Sherman — I  am  unwilling  to  urge  the  appeal  if  it  is  not 
in  accordance  with  the  Rule.  I  hold  myself  subject  to  the  Rules  of 
the  house,  and  cannot  press  my  appeal.  I  wish  to  maintain  and  ob- 
serve the  Rules  of  Order.  And  here  I  wish  it  to  be  noted,  that  it  is 
ruled  by  the  Chair  that  an  appeal  from  its  decision  is  not  allowed  by 
the  Rules  of  Order  here  obtaining.  A  similar  decision  occurred  on  a 
former  occasion  and  was  forgotten.     I  hope  this  will  be  remembered. 

Mr.  J.  J.  Chetwood — I  now  call  for  the  vote  on  motion  to  accept 
the  Report  of  the  Committee  as  read  to  the  Convention. 

The  Bishop  put  the  motion,  which  was  carried. 

After  the  acceptance  of  the  Report,  the  question  occurring  on  its 
adoption. 

Rev.  Mr.  Lowell  spoke  as  follows : 

Reverend  Father — I  am  now  ready  fo  take  up  again,  where  it  was 
dropped,  the  thread  of  my  remarks.  I  have  been  saj'ing  Sir,  that  cer- 
tain great  and  living  principles  lay  at  the  bottom  of  this  discussion, 
and  principles,  I  apprehend,  which  have  been  quite  misunderstood,  or 
laid  aside  by  this  Convention  in  its  former  action. 

I  say  again.  Sir,  that  there  is  one  single,  sole  tribunal,  at  which  the 
question  of  a  Bishop's  guilt  or  innocence,  when  accused,  can  be  in- 
vestigated ;  a  single  one,  at  which  before  the  world,  right  can  bo 
done,  when  charges  have  been  made  against  him  by  responsible  persons. 
In  that  connection  I  be:^  the  indulgence  of  the  house,  while  I  remind 
them  of  the  quotation  from  the  Canon  lav/,  illustrative  of  this  settled 
principle:  episcoptim  a  comprovinciaUbus  suis  judicare  dehere.  Has 
this  clear  principle  been  understood  or  borne  in  mind?  Let  me  refer, 
for  illustration  of  the  contrary,  to  these  words,  occurring  in  the  Report 
presented  by  our  Committe,  who  apply,  if  not  directly,  yet  surely, 
indirectly,  the  term  "a  lawful  couit,"  to  this  Convention  or  to  its 
Committee.  Behold  what  character  is  arrogated  to  a  Committee  of 
our  own,  when  they  are  sitting  to  investigate  the  weight  and  worth  of 
charges  said  to  have  been  presented,  impeaching  the  good  character 
of  our  Bishop!  I  ought  at  once  to  say,  by  way  of  parenthesis,  that  I 
am  quite  ignorant  of  the  matters  said  here  to  have  been  published 
since  the  sitting  of  the  Court,  by  the  "  three  Bishops."  I  have  avoided 
reading  them.  They  are  no  views  or  arguments  of  other  men  which 
prompted  the  few  words  from  me  before  and  these.  Such  terms  as 
that  above — such  strange  and  wrong  opinions  as  occasion  them  — 


these  urge  me  to  maintaia  the  right  against  tho  wrong,  I  now  wish 
to  present  to  you  again,  and  for  the  purpose  of  enforcing  it,  what 
seems  a  phiin  and  fundamental  truth  ;  and  as  it  always  is  the  dictate 
of  good  policy  as  well  as  of  plain  duty,  that  truth  should  be  observed, 
so  here  especially  it  seems  to  me,  that  that,  and  that  alone  it  is  which 
ought  to  guide  our  action. ■< 

If  now  it  be,  as  I  believe  it  is,  a  fact  which  will  not  be  disputed  by 
thosn  who  are  acquainted  with  the  history  and  structure  of  the  Church, 
that  there  is  but  that  one,  that  single  competent  tribunal  for  trial  of  a 
Bishop  charged  with  wrong  doing,  is  it  too  much  to  say  that  in  estab- 
lishing another  court,  and  claiming  that  its  favorable  award  is  final, 
there  has  been  actu;d  evasion  of  this  forum,  and  a  withdrawing  of  our 
cause  froin  the  one  place  to  which  it  ought  to  go  ?  Most  surely,  Sir, 
our  leaving  the  true  court  for  any  thing  which  is  not  the  true  court,  is  a 
wrong  done  ourselves,  and  if  we  can  persist  in  it,  it  is  a  wrong  done 
to  others. 

This  principle  seems  to  be  the  more  important  to  be  entertained  just 
now,  because  it  is  tho  very  thing  required,  as  well  for  the  establishing 
the  Bishop's  innocence,  as  for  God's  sake,  and  for  preserving  the  sa- 
cred institutions  which  Ho  has  set  within  the  Church.  1  do  not  hero 
propose  to  undertake  discussing  with  exactness,  the  (juestion  of  what 
constitutes  a  court,  to  show  the  grievous  error  making  its  way  into 
this  case.  But  I  remember  very  well,  that  high  authorities  upon  this 
floor  denied,  when  the  appointment  of  the  "  Investigating  Committee" 
was  proposed,  that  it  would  have  or  claim  in  any  way,  the  character  of 
a  court,  as  I  know  very  well,  moreover,  that  no  such  character  caa 
properly  belong  to  such  a  thing ;  now  it  is  to  prevent  that  character 
being  erroneously  ascribed  to  it,  that  I  must  ask  you  to  consider  well 
the  actual  circumstances  of  this  case. 

It  seems  to  me  that  where  a  convention,  or  a  commitee  of  its  form- 
ing, can  sit  as  a  tribunal,  investigate  a  case  upon  its  merits,  examine 
witnesses,  especially  examine  under  oath,  and  then  adjudicate  a  caso 
upon  its  merits,  there,  if  the  characters  of  a  court  do  not  belong,  it  has 
at  least  been  wrongfully  assumed  or  given.  It  seems  to  me,  iSir,  that 
the  very  House  of  Bishops,  except  for  that  especial  s:icredness  of  char- 
acter which  God  has  given  to  it,  has  not  more  properties  of  a  court 
than  these  same,  it  is  no  more  than  justice  to  allow  to  the  Commit- 
tee a  fair  construction  of  their  action,  granting,  as  must  be  granted, 
that  all  the  members  were  honorable  and  high  minded,  with  every  dis- 
position to  make  a  fair  and  thorough  investigation,  as  far  as  they 
were  able  ;  yet  it  is  quite  another  thing  that  that  Committee  has  been 
quietly,  before  the  mind  of  our  Convention  and  of  the  world  at  large, 
taking  a  character  which  does  not,  and  which  of  right  cannot  belong 
to  it — a  cloak  which  ought  to  be  stripped  instantly  from  its  shoulders. 
It  has  been  sitting  as  a  court,  and  exercising  all  the  faculties  of  a 
court,  and  now,  in  the  Report  before  us,  behold  the  claim  openly  as- 
serted— behold  the  title  actually  given — "a  lawful  court." 

I  have  S'lid  sir,  that  it  seems  to  be  essential  to  abide  by  truth  in 
this  respect,  not  least,  for  preservation  of  the  Bishop's  rights.  It  will 
be  readily  remembered,  by  those  who  are  acquainted  with  the  history 
of  our  church  in  the  United  States,  that  the  principle  of  a  Bishop's  be- 
ing amenable  to  his  convention,  or  any  thing  except  a  Court  of  Bishops, 
as  it  was  instantly  objected  to  by  the  prelates  of  whom  was  sough  ^ 


8 

the  gift  of  consecration  in  England ;  so  was  it  counted  a  most  danger- 
ous one  by  the  best  members  of  the  Church  on  this  side  of  the  water. 
About  no  single  thing  almost,  was  there  so  much  solicitude  and  anx- 
iety, when  what  is  called  "  the  Constitution  of  the  Church"  was  just 
about  to  be  adopted.  Now  it  seems  clear  that  if  to  a  convention, 
acting  by  its  committee,  or  of  itself  directly,  be  yielded  such  a  power 
to  try  the  character  and  conduct  of  its  Bishops,  examining  wit- 
nesses under  oath,  disposing  of  the  case  upon  its  merits;  it  can  most 
easily  and  directly  assume  all  jurisdiction  in  the  premises,  whatever 
be  the  action  of  the  House  of  Bishops.  It  certainly  may  just  as  well 
convict  its  Bishop  by  its  own  private,  partial  action,  as  it  can  in  this 
private'way  acquit  him ;  and  looking  upon  the  fearful  consequences 
of  such  a  gross  assumption  of  unrighteous  power,  I  say  that  on  this 
ground,  i(  upon  this  alone,  the  careful  maintenance  of  right  and  truth 
is  of  the  utmost  consequence.  The  Bishop  is  not  amenable  to  this 
Convention,  or  to  any  part  of  it,  or  to  a  committee  of  whatever  sort, 
appointed  by  this  Convention. 

I  do  not  wish  to  occupy  your  time  longer  than  may  be  necessary; 
but  in  the  argument  of  this  Report  there  are  some  things  to  which  I 
certainly  will  be  no  party,  while  I  would  say  that  I  have  no  such  thing 
as  verbal  criticism,  or  criticism  of  style  to  make.  In  the  Committee's 
argument  and  authorities  they  halt  most  evidently,  although  they  say 
that  they  have  brought  to  the  discharge  of  their  commission  whatever 
"  learning,"  as  well  as  other  qualities  of  fitness  they  possessed.  I  do 
not  question.  Sir,  that  they  have  brought  to  it  all  the  learning  that 
they  had  among  them,  and  have  no  doubt  that  they  had  learning  quite 
sufficient  for  their  purpose.  It  has  occasioned  a  str^.nge  statement 
here.  I  read  from  this  Report — "  The}'  {the  three  bishops,)  say  with 
justice  and  in  strict  accordance  with  the  meaning  of  the  Canons  and 
the  spirit  of  all  ancient  law,  that  it  is  only  when  a  diocesan  convention 
has  refused  to  institute  inquiry,  which  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey  has 
never  done,  or  has  neglected  it  for  too  long  a  period,  that  they  can  be 
expected  to  interfere."  Now,  Sir,  what  may  be  the  opinion  of  the 
three  presenting  bishops,  in  this  or  any  kindred  matter,  I  do  not  know 
from  "  their  first  letter,"  or  from  their  later  publications.  Of  what 
importance  is  it  to  me?  of  what  importance  is  it  in  the  case  at  all? 
and  yet  it  is  and  has  been  quoted  as  a  rule  of  action  here  and  in  sev- 
eral of  our  Conventions  heretofore.  The  argument  of  our  Committee 
I  have  a  right  to  say  a  word  to,  and  I  wish  to  say  that  I  should  like 
a  meaning  for  this  large  expression,  "  the  spirit  of  all  ancient  law." 
How  wide  and  large !  it  would  be  a  long  labor  certainly  to  show  what 
was  "  the  spirit  of  all  ancient  law,"  or  of  one  half  of  it — all  ancient 
Canon  law — and  I  will  meet  their  large  assertion  therefore,  with  just  as 
wide  and  as  explicit  a  denial  It  is  well  for  them  that  they  have  not  said 
"the  letter  of  all  ancient  Ihw,"  for  speaking  from  a  moderate  acquaint- 
ance with  the  "  Corpus  Juris,"  I  think  that  any  one  who  will  but  run  a 
practised  eye  and  ready  hand  along  the  titles  of  that  swelling  code  for 
instances,  would  find  it  difficult  to  get  at  this  result,  almost  to  find  a 
"letter"  to  encourage  him.  But  with  what  confidence  will  men  ex- 
press themselves  about  "the  spirit  of  all  ancient  law."  It  seems  to 
me  that  in  this  special  matter,  the  imposing  reference  might  better 
3iave  been  left  untouched. 

What  is  all  ancient  law  ?     Is  it  our  Canon  of  eight  years  ago,  or 


that  of  three  years  earlier  ?  for  as  I  remember  the  earliest  Canon  so 
adopted  b}'  the  Church  upon  the  matter  of  the  accusation  of  a  Bishop,, 
was  that  adopted  at  Constantinople,  in  the  year  381.  In  the  sixth 
Canon  of  that  Council,  the  Fathers  there  say  somewhat  thus,  "  that  if 
a  charge  be  brought  against  a  Bishop  for  a  wrong  done  by  him  to 
any  other,  the  person  of  the  accuser  shall  not  be  inquired  into,  nor 
shall  his  religion,  but  it  shall  go  to  trial.  If  accusation  shall  be 
brought  in  reference  to  some  ecclesiastical  subject,  then  the  person 
of  the  accuser  shall  be  inquired  into;  for  if  he  be  a  heretic  or  unbe- 
liever, if  he  be  excommunicated  or  nnder  censure,  he  is  not  to  be 
heard  in  such  a  cause  against  an  Orthodox  Bishop."  That  may  be 
called.  Reverend  Father,  "  ancient  law ;"  that  I  believe,  was  the  first 
Canon  on  the  subject  in  the  Church.  Now  if  you  take,  in  connection 
with  that  Canon,  one  of  Chalcedon,  in  A.D.,  451,  upon  the  trial  of  a 
Bishop  by  the  Bishops  of  his  province,  and  one  called  "  apostolic," 
(though  not  of  the  Apostles,)  declaring,  in  like  manner,  how  Bishops 
are  amenable  to  a  Court  of  Bishops  and  censurable  by  them,  you  will 
have  all  the  Canons  bearing  directly  on  this  subject  within  the  first 
five  hundred  years  after  our  Savior  Christ,  and  there  you  will  find 
nothing  of  Diocesan  Conventions,  if  such  things  then  existed,  or  any 
thing  diocesan.  You  will  there  find  no  reference  to  such  a  thing  in 
any  possible  way,  direct  or  indirect;  you  will  see  there  the  character 
of  the  Court  to  which  the  Bishop  is  and  ought  to  be  amenable,  and 
you  will  see  the  way  in  which  he  could  be  called  to  an  account. 

The  question  of  the  right  to  make  presentment,  our  Committee  set- 
tle by  reference  to  "  the  spirit  of  all  ancient  law."  They  say,  that  in 
accordance  with  this  spirit  the  three  presenting  Bishops  have  asserted, 
"  that  it  is  only  when  a  Diocesan  Convention  refuses  or  neglects  to 
institute  investigation,  th?t  they  can  be  expected  to  interfere."  Now, 
Sir,  if,  as  I  think  I  may  most  safely  say,  (no  person  well  informed 
being  at  all  likely  to  say  nay,)  there  is  no  reference  whatever  in  the 
large  body  of  the  Canon  law  to  any  interference  of  a  Diocesan  Con- 
vention,  or  any  thing  diocesan,  as  such,  about  the  trial  of  its  Bishop, 
then  is  the  question  not  to  be  so  settled. 

The  truth  is,  that  the  special  right  in  this  case  of  either  party  to 
present,  is  founded  on  a  positive  enactment  upon  the  Statute  of  our 
Church,  in  its  III  Canon  of  1844.  We  all  of  course  remember,  that 
as  it  is  provided  that  two-thirds  of  the  clergy  and  two-thirds  of  the 
laity,  in  Diocesan  Convention  may  present,  so  also  it  is  said  that  the 
"presentment  may  be  made  by  any  three  Bishops  of  this  Church." 
It  might  to  a  hasty  eye  appear  perhaps,  that  as  the  last  is  the  shorter 
ex|)ression  of  the  two,  and  as  there  is  a  little  enlai'gement  in  expres- 
sion of  the  first  clause,  therefore  that  carries  something  more  of  weight 
and  of  authoi'ity  than  what  belongs  to  the  (ew  words  in  which  the 
.  power  is  given  to  three  Bishops  There  is,  however,  no  enlargement 
as  to  the  character  in  which  the  Diocese  appears,  except  exactly  such 
as  was  required  to  guard  with  scrupulous  care,  that  matter  of  present- 
ment of  a  Bishop  by  his  Diocese.  It  ought  to  have  been,  it  was  in- 
tended not  to  convey  a  privilege  or  preference,  but  to  prevent  a  Bish- 
op's character  being  left  at  the  disposal  of  his  Diocesan  Convention, 
or  his  being  driven  to  trial,  hastily,  by  his  Convention  in  case  he  were 
unpopular,  as  is  not  the  case  liere.  There  is  no  niore  weight  given 
in  the  words  of  that  III  Canon  of  1844  to  one  than  to  the  other;  and 


10 

therefore  should  there  no  more  weight  be  given,  in  the  case,  to  one 
than  to  the  other.  They  stand  on  positive  enactment ;  they  stand  on 
equal  terms  in  the  enactment ;  and  while  I  say  this,  I  will  also  say 
that  *•  in  accordance  ivith  the  spirif  of  all  ancient  law,"  if  there  were  a 
priority  of  claim,  it  woultl,  undoubtedly,  belong  to  the  three  Bishops, 
and  not  to  the  Convention.  If  there  be  question  made  of  right  be- 
tween the  Convention  and  the  Bishops,  apart  from  positive  enactment 
in  that  III  Canon  of  1844  and  that  of  three  years  earlier,  the  prior 
claim  is  for  the  Bishops,  and  not  for  tlie  Convention. 

I  will  ask  any  one  running  his  eye  over  the  Canon  law,  to  bear  rae 
witness  how  well  the  rights  and  characters  of  Bishops  have  beea 
guarded  by  their  Canons.  A  hasty  and  unpractised  person  might 
suppose,  from  one  or  two  such  glances,  that  any  action  for  a  Bishop's 
trial  must  be  begun  and  ended  by  his  brother  Bishops.  I  do  not  say 
that  this  has  been  the  case  at  first  or  last,  but  such  expressions  fre- 
quentl}'  occur  in  rules  and  glosses  that  it  might  seem,  to  such  a  hasty 
glance,  that  there  be  no  possibility  of  getting  a  bad  Bishop  to  his 
trial,  unless  by  action  of  his  brethren.  Their  equal  claim  to  make 
presentment,  who,  until  now,  would  ever  dare  deny?  Their  equal 
right,  by  the  plain  language  of  the  Canon,  as  by  plain  common  sense, 
who  ought  to  question  ? 

Now,  Sir,  comes  our  Committee,  claiming  credit  for  having  done  this 
chief  and  greatest  wrong;  they  have  succeeded — so  they  say — in  with- 
drawing this  case  from  its  proper  forum  ;  doing  our  Bishop,  in  so  doing, 
a  great  and  manifest  injustice  in  keeping  him  from  vindicating,  in  the 
face  of  an  angry  world,  or  (had  the  case  been  so,)  of  a  suspicious  and 
complaining  diocese — from  vindicating,  in  whatever  case — the  integ- 
rity of  his  character.  Here  I  would  saj'  too,  that  as  regards  the  con- 
duct of  this  last  Committee  of  the  Diocese,  I  would  not  question,  for 
a  single  moment,  that  full  faith  should  be  given  to  its  sincerity  and 
singleness  of  purpose  in  every  step  tnat  has  been  taken  ;  in  every  ar- 
gument and  opinion  urged;  but  why  have  we  brought  up  again  and 
j'et  again,  this  matter  of  priority  of  claim  to  make  presentment,  unless 
to  put  off  trial  by  the  Bishops  ?  All  this  withdrawing  of  the  case  from 
that  one  Court  of  Bishops,  by  bringing  in  of  certain  secondary  ques- 
tions from  the  first,  has  seemed  to  n)e  of  the  most  dangerous  tendency 
in  our  Committee,  not  only  because  by  raising  and  discussing  them 
they  assail  the  truth,  but  because  they  are  doing  by  this  course,  so 
great  a  wrong,  as  I  conceive  to  their  own  Bishop's  feelings  and  fair 
fame.  If  there  be  no  tribunal  fully  competent,  except  that  of  the 
House  of  Bishops,  or  if,  to  put  it  even  on  a  lower  ground,  there  were 
in  the  estimation  of  a  very  large  body  of  the  Church  but  that  one — an 
opinion  supported  by  reference  to  all  ecclesiastical  authority — if  there 
were  such  an  opinion,  as  I  am  confident  there  is  with  a  large  number 
of  those  members  of  the  Church  who  are  agreed  in  every  point  of  doc- 
trine with  our  Bishop,  that  there  is  no  Court  except  that  which  can 
rightfully  set  on  such  a  case  as  this,  (or  of  necessity  can  finally  deter- 
mine it,)  then  I  conceive  that  a  great  wrong  is  being  done  to  our 
Bishop  by  our  Committe  or  this  Convention  thrusting  itself  in  between 
him  and  the  House  of  Bishops,  with  its  side  questions  of  light  and 
wrong. 

I  know  that  a  great  deal  has  been  said  heretofore  about  the  rights 
of  this  Diocese  being  invaded;  but  I  believe  that  such  invasion  might 


11 

be  fairly  met  and  quite  sufficiently  repelled  by  any  document  like  that 
entitled  "  Protest,  Appeal  and  Reply,"  upon  the  I'ishop's  part,  and  bj 
a  proper  action  of  the  Diocesan  Convention  ;  but  I  must  ask  why 
that  same  sort  of  feeling  should  be  still  perpetuated ;  to  what  good 
end  expressions  tending  to  increase  it  should  be  still  employed  ;  whj 
our  Committee  should  lay  so  much  stress  upon  the  rights  and  claims 
(as  they  are  called)  of  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese;  for,  as  was 
said  before,  their  doing  so  is  keeping  wide  and  widening  still,  the  sep- 
aration between  our  Bishop  and  that  competent  tribunal — that  couit 
to  which,  as  has  been  said,  he  is  amenable ;  to  which,  for  his  owa 
sake,  I  believe  fully  that  he  ought  to  go.  Shall  this  Committee  be  al- 
lowed to  raise  again  these  little  questions,  as  they  seem  to  me  in  com- 
parison with  the  one  great  question?  That  one  great  question,  para- 
mount, is  of  doing  right,  and  so  of  doing  justice  to  the  Bishop's 
character.  So  runs  "  all  ancient  law,"  in  most  exact  accordance  with 
that  sentence  of  the  Bible  ;  A  Bishop  must  be  blameless — a  text 
which  shines  both  far  and  wide  upon  its  page. 

For  what  has  been  already  done  by  the  Investigating  Committee,  I 
have  already  said  that  I  believe  most  fully  that  they  have  done  this 
work  as  honorable,  high-minded  men  ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  if  even, 
they  had  been  a  competent  tribunal,  still  what  has  been  said  about  the 
thoroughness  and  sufiiciency  of  their  examination  is  untrue.  Whether, 
as  this  Report  says,  those  who  accuse  i  the  Bishop  oughtlo  have  been 
there  or  not,  (and  I  would  not  now  question  the  propriety  of  their 
coming,  if  they  pleased;)  yet  it  is  manifest  that  they  were  not  before 
the  Committee  of  Investigation.  Certain  persons,  of  whom  I  scarcely 
know  the  names,  and  nothing  more,  but  who,  as  it  appears,  have 
brought  the  heaviest  charges  against  the  Bishop,  did  not  appear  at  all, 
and  so,  of  course,  they  answered  to  no  question,  and  therefore  the 
investigation  was,  from  the  necessity  of  the  case,  a  partial  one.  It 
was  not  so  intended:  far  otherwise;  but  from  the  nature  of  the  case 
it  was  the  fact  that  that  was  an  ex  parte  examination.  Now,  Sir,  be- 
lieving, as  I  do,  that  the  result  of  that  investigation  was  a  just  and  true 
one  as  regards  the  Bishop's  character;  believing,  as  I  do,  that  the 
Bishop  is  innocent  of  the  charges  brought  against  him,  I  ask  wlij 
should  we,  by  the  raising  of  whatever  secondary  questions,  keep  back 
the  Bish-^p  from  the  simple  issue?  Keep  back  our  Bishop  from  that 
one  sufficient  court,  by  which  his  case  would  have  been  finally  deter- 
mined and  have  been  set  at  rest  long  years  and  years  ago. 

I  have,  and  ever  had,  but  one  opinion  in  this  matter — that  if  it  had 
been  lanl,  three  years  ago,  before  the  House  of  Bishops,  all  difficulty 
would  have  been  removed,  three  years  ago,  instead  of  gathering  in 
volume  and  in  blackness  as  the  time  went  on.  Is  it  not  now  exactly 
of  the  same  importance  to  this  Convention? — is  it  not  now  exactly  of 
.  the  same  importance  to  our  Bishop,  that  the  right  course  should  be 
adopted?  If  that  be  now,  as  always,  the  one  competent  tribunal, 
then  let  us  waive  these  other  questions  and  keep  ourselves  to  that  one 
single  point  :  the  satisfaction  of  the  chiims  of  justice  for  our  Bish  p. 
Wliy  will  we  not  now  let  the  case  go  up  on  its  own  merits  to  that 
court,  [inte7ruptioii  by  Mr.  Gondii,^  instead  of  suffering  accusalioa 
still  to  walk  the  earth.  [Mr.  Gondii  thinks  the  gentleman  wholly  out 
of  order.  ] 

I  am  not  out  of  order,  Sir,  for  I  am  speaking  against  a  course  of  ac- 


12 

tion  proposed  in  this  Report,  as  the  Uke  course  of  action,  heretofore, 
is  there  applauded  ;  and  therefore  am  not  willing  to  be  interrupted.  I 
do  not  wish  that  the  Report  should  be  adopted,  for  I  believe  that  it 
involves  approval  of  a  course  which  has  infheted  and  will  still  inflict 
an  injury  upon  this  Convention  and  ou  the  character  of  its  Bishop, 
not  the  least.  Now  I  take  leave  to  ask  of  the  Convention  yet  again, 
is  it  not  far  better,  (and  I  am  commenting  upon  the  views  presented 
in  thisHeport,)  will  it  not  be  better  far  if  the  case  should  be  suffered 
yet  to  go  upon  its  mei  its  directly  to  the  House  of  Bishops  ?  It  is  be- 
cause the  Report  of  this  Committee  so  interposes  other  subjects  be- 
tween us  and  the  simple  issue ;  it  is  because  that  Report  raises  so 
great  and  many  difficulties  which  ought  to  have  no  place  in  the  con- 
sideration of  this  most  important  subject  ;  and  it  is  finally  and  espe- 
cially because  the  course  which  it  applauds  and  recommends,  is  not 
the  right  course,  the  plain  and  simple  course,  which  leads  to  simple 
right.    It  is  for  these  causes,  Sir,  that  I  object  to  it. 

Now,  in  conclusion,  I  would  only  ask,  if  it  was  ever  known — I  ask 
of  all  the  members  of  the  Convention  who  have  been  in  the  habit  of 
dealing  with  innocent  and  honest  men,  (and  I  suppose  that  I  may  ask 
of  all  its  members,)  if  it  was  ever  known  in  their  experience  before, 
that  between  any  innocent  and  honest  man,  swelling  with  the  con- 
sciousness of  innocence  as  to  twice  the  man  of  common  times,  be- 
tween him  and  a  fair  tribunal,  so  many  difficulties  and  objections  and 
obstacles  were  interposed  as  we  have  had  thrust  in  between  our 
Bishop  and  that  simple  course  by  vhich  all  difficulty  would  have  been 
removed ;  between  him  and  that  court  by  which  true,  final  justice 
could  have  been  dispensed?  1  never  knew  of  such  a  case  as  that  in 
which  an  honest  and  innocent  man,  as  I  believe,  our  Bishop  is — 
nay,  as  we  know  him  to  be — had  so  much  pains  and  skill  and  effort 
aU  bestowed  to  keep  him,  when  accused,  from  going  to  the  compe- 
tent tribunal.  In  former  years  my  office  brought  me  into  both  fre- 
quent and  familiar  intercourse  w^ith  officers  of  the  army  and  the  navy, 
and  I  am  sure  that  not  a  single  one  of  them,  if  charges  had  been  made 
afiecting  (as  the  phrase  goes,)  his  character  as  an  officer  and  gentle- 
man, would  have  set  down  content  for  three  whole  days,  without  a 
trial.  I  cannot  I  am  sure  conceive  why  in  this  case  objection  should 
be  made.  The  Bishop  is  innocent;  he  is  charged;  the  House  of 
Bishops,  and  they  only,  can  acquit  him. 

Sir,  one  single  difficulty  may  have  been  present  in  the  minds  of 
certain  persons  concerned  in  these  proceedings  ;  it  may  be  that  mem- 
bers of  the  Convention  have  aniicipated  some  injustice  from  ?he  sup- 
posed hostility  of  certain  members  of  the  House  of  Bishops.  1  do 
not  know.  Sir,  how  many  of  the  Bishops  are  hostile  to  our  own. 
Whatever  may  have  been  the  case — if  that  had  been  the  case,  which 
has,  perhaps,  been  feared — if  even  it  were  true,  which  God  forbid, 
that  justice  cannot  be  fairly  and  equitably  administered  by  them,  still 
even  then  it  is  the  competent  tribunal.  If  every  one  of  all  those 
Bishops  were  opposed — aye,  every  single  man  opposed  to  ours  on 
every  point  of  doctrine,  even  then  it  is  the  court  of  God's  appoint- 
ment. Certainly,  had  1  been  ever  asked  to  give  advice,  I  would  have 
said.  Go  to  that  court:  go  there  and  be  condemned,  if  necessary.  So, 
long  ago,  our  Savior  Christ  went  to  the  judgment  seat,  though  from 
the  judgment  seat  the  path  led  only  to  the  cross  raised  for  Him  ;  and 


13 

so,  Sir,  just  as  our  Savior  went  patiently  and  meekly  to  the  right  tri- 
bunal, though  only  to  a  certain  condemation,  even  so  why  should  not 
we  ?  If  it  were  sure  that  he  shall  fall  an  innocent  man  before  his 
guilty  judges,  yet  let  the  innocent  man  go  to  his  trial,  and  let  even 
wicked  law,  in  the  hands  of  wicked  administrators  of  the  law,  should 
it  be  so,  take  its  own  lawful  course.  So  martyrs  and  saints,  from  the 
earliest  day  of  our  dear  faith,  till  now,  have  always  followed  and  al- 
waj's  have  exhibited  again  our  Savior  Christ's  example,  who,  as  St. 
Peter  says,  went  freely  even  to  that  tree,  and  Himself  bare,  not  His 
but  our  otlenses  on  that  tree.  They  teach  us  all,  these  holy  men,  that 
if  we,  too,  be  buffeted  in  doing  well,  and  be  condemned  unjustly,  still 
it  is  well.  Let  us  bear  all  injustice  ;  let  us  meet  trial,  and  let  us  be  con- 
tent with  condemnation.     [Interruption  again  by  Mr.  Condit.] 

Now,  Sir,  in  this  case,  our  Bishop  has  as  strong  a  cause  as,  I  be- 
lieve, can  well  be  brought  before  an  earthly  court ;  I  say  a  cause  in 
which  those  very  accusers  would  be  the  very  best  of  witnesses  in  his 
favor :  as  good  as  if  they  had  been  summoned  by  himself  to  stand 
there  at  his  side.  How  is  it  then,  that  we  can  hesitate,  and  why  is  it 
that  we  must  be  devising  other  plans ;  adopting  other  expedients, 
which  of  course  can  never  satisfy  the  exigency  of  the  case  ?  [Judge 
Ogden  here  said  that  he  was  opposed  to  the  gentleman's  going  on  and 
speaking  of  the  course  adopted  in  July;  it  seemed  to  him  that  he  was 
clearly  out  of  order,  when  the  Report  was  before  the  house  for  adop- 
tion. Mr.  Lowell  proceeded  :]  I  have  been  speaking  freely.  Sir,  but 
I  have  spoken,  only,  to  the  recommendations  contained  in  that  Report. 
I  ever  shall  speak  freely.  At  the  same  time,  t  wish  to  say,  that  if  I 
had  been  out  of  order,  it  would  have  been  quite  unintentionally,  and  I 
would  promptly  have  apologized,  both  to  the  President  and  the  Con- 
vention ;  but  I  have  said  enough,  Sir,  and  with  this  last  interruption 
am  content  to  take  my  seat. 

At  the  conclusion  of  Mr.  Lowell's  remarks,  the  Convention  ad- 
journed, to  meet  at  half-past  4  o'clock,  P.  M. 

At  the  re-assembling  of  the  Convention,  the  Bishop»having  taken 
the  Chair,  the  house  was  called  to  order. 

Hox.  D.  B.  Ryall — Mr.  President,  the  Convention  have  accepted 
the  Report  of  the  Committee,  and  the  question  is  before  the  Conven- 
tion now,  will  they  adopt  it  ?  That  is  the  point.  I  know  not.  Sir, 
what  was  the  object  of  the  gentleman  who  last  addressed  the  Con- 
vention, in  I'aising  the  objection  upon  such  a  point  as  he  did.  I  do 
not,  Sir,  as  one  of  the  Committee  who  have  signed  that  Report,  say 
anj'thing  in  reference  to  it.  It  will  speak  for  itself.  It  has  been  read 
before  the  Convention,  and  I  have  no  doubt  they  have  given  it  due 
consideration.  I  draw,  Sir,  however,  the  inference  from  the  observa- 
tions of  the  gentleman  who  last  addressed  the  Convention,  that  it  is 
the  duty  now  of  this  Convention,  to  retrace  their  steps — to  rescind 
by  some  resolution  or  by  some  action  of  the  Convention,  all  that  has 
been  done — to  again  assemble  by  some  means  or  other  the  council  of 
the  Bishops,  and  again  for  this  Convention  to  apply  to  the  House  of 
Bishops  for  the  trial  of  the  Bishop  of  this  Diocese.  If  these  are  not 
the  objects  which  he  has  in  view,  I  do  not  understand  him. 


14 

I  will  say  nothing  further.  Sir,  upon  thcit  subject ;  but  as  in  the 
conrs"  of  his  observations  something  was  said  in  reference  to  the  dis- 
charge of  the  duties  of  the  Committee  appointed  by  this  Convention, 
and  of  the  course  pursued  by  the  investigation,  I  wish  for  a  few  mo- 
ments to  correct  a  popular  error  which  prevails  in  reference  to  what 
is  called  ex  parte  evidence. 

It  has  been  said  by  the  Rev.  gentleman  who  last  addressed  the  Con- 
vention that  the  testimony  of  the  witnesses,  and  the  testimony  taken 
before  the  Committee  raised  by  this  Convention,  and  who  have  here- 
tofore I'eported  to  it,  was  ex  parte.  Now,  Sir,  I  do  not  understand  it 
to  be  ex  parte  testimony,  in  the  legal  acceptation  of  that  term. 

There  is  ex  parte  evidence  taken,  and  such,  Sir,  was  taken  in  this 
ease  when  the  deposition  of  Mr.  Hays  was  taken  at  the  office  or  be- 
fore a  Master  in  Chancery  by  a  gentlem  in  from  St.  Michael's,  or  un- 
der his  direction,  when  you.  Sir,  the  party  who  was  impeached  on  that 
occasion,  when  your  friends  had  no  opportunity  of  attending  upon 
that  examination.  That  was  strictly  ex  parte  evidence,  and  was  the 
basis,  as  I  understand  it,  upon  which  the  charge  was  made.  But,  Sir, 
the  testimony  taken  before  the  Committee  of  Investigation  was  not 
ex  parte. 

Notice  was  given,  Sir,  to  the  accusers.  Nutice  was  given  to  every 
individual  named  in  that  presentment,  or  who  could  shed  any  light  on 
the  subject;  a  day  fixed,  an  hour  appointed,  a  Committee  assembled, 
for  the  purpose  of  hearing  testimony,  and  notice  given  to  the  accusers 
and  to  one  of  the  accusers  in  particular,  upon  inquiries  made  by  him, 
that  he  had  a  right,  would  be  permitted,  would  be  received  before  the 
Committee,  either  individually  or  as  attorney  for  any  of  the  parties, 
for  the  purpose  of  examining  that  evidence.  When,  Sir,  testimony  is 
taken,  and  all  parties  have  a  right  to  be  heard,  and  neglect  to  be  heard, 
I  take  it  Sir,  that  the  examination  then  will  not  bear  the  appellation  of 
crpar^e  evidence. 

Look,  Sir,  at  this  evidence.  A  cause  of  no  matter  how  much  im- 
portance to  the  land.  The  attorney  for  the  plaiiitifl"  sends  his  notice 
to  the  attorney  for  the  defendant,  and  the  case  is  open  ;  witnesses 
called  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  testimony  on  the  part  of  the 
plaintiff.  II'  the  attorney  for  the  defendant  does  not  appear  for  the 
purpose  of  cross  examining  thoise  witnesses  is  that  received  as  ex 
parte  evidence  ?  No,  Sir.  not  according  to  the  common  acceptation 
of  the  term,  because  they  had  an  opportunity  to  do  it.  And  the  ac- 
cusers in  jour  case,  Sir,  were  said  to  have  been  injured.  All  parties 
connected  directly  or  indirectly  were  notified;  every  witness  notified 
to  appear,  were  notified  of  the  day  and  time  of  the  examination.  If 
they  neglected  to  appear,  what.  Sir,  is  the  inference  to  be  drawn? 
Wiiy,  that  they  could  not  establish  the  fact  which  it  is  said  that 
they  would  establish. 

What  course.  Sir,  was  pursued  by  the  Examining  Committee  ? 
When  the  witnesses  were  examined,  they  did  not  take  part  either  one 
way  or  the  other.  The  question  was  put  to  each  witness,  '  Will  you 
take  the  oath  V  The  answer  was,  in  each  case,  in  the  affirmative. 
They  weie  then  sworn  to  tell  the  truth,  the  whole  tiuth,  and  nothing 
but  the  truth.  The  inquiry  then  was,  *  Relate  to  the  Committee  all 
you  know  in  reference  to  this  matter.'  These  were  witnesses  who  it 
was  said  would  sustain  the  charge  in  many  instances,  and  all  they 


15 

said  and  testified  to  was  set  down  in  writing,  and  signed  by  each  of 
these  witnesses,  and  the  result  was  the  report  which  has  been  read  in 
your  hearing.  On  the  report  of  that  Committee,  where  was  the  indi- 
vidual who  rose  up  and  said  that  each  and  everything  tliey  said  were 
not  true  ?  Was  there  any  allegation  or  charge  of  tldskind  before  the 
House  of  Bishops  ?     None  that  has  come  to  my  knowledge. 

The  testimony  of  the  witnesses  examined,  disprove  the  facts  as  has 
been  stateii  in  a  Report  just  made  before  you.  I  admit  they  were 
erroneous,  and  if  my  own  opinion  had  been  carried  out,  1  was  pre- 
pared to  have  made  a  Report  that  there  was  no  evidence  to  sustain 
any  of  these  charges,  but  out  of  pvngent  objection  the  witnesses  were 
examined  ;  what  ever  they  would  say,  whether  for  or  against  you,  was 
recorded,  and  the  result  has  been  that  there  has  been  a  mass  of  nega- 
tive testimony,  which  from  the  principle  upon  which  the  Committee 
acted,  they  seemed  to  go  by  the  idea  that  these  charges  had  in  the 
first  place  been  proved.  Now,  Sir,  take  that  testimony,  then  with  this 
notice  to  all  who  are  interested  in  the  matter,  to  the  accusers,  yourself 
the  part}'  said  to  be  injured,  and  all  others,  and  compare  it  with  (he 
little  testimony  brought  forward  of  the  ex  parte  character,  as  published 
by  those  who  made  the  charges  against  you.  On  the  one  side,  Sir, 
there  was  proper  evidence  that  all  parties  had  an  opportunity  to  be 
heard,  and  where  the  Committee  did  go  into  investigation  so  far  as 
they  were  able  to  make  it,  it  was  full.  On  the  other  side  there  was 
strictly  ex  parte  testimony  taken  in  the  business,  in  all  that  was  done 
against  you. 

Before  I  sit  down,  i  must  beg  leave  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Con- 
vention and  of  youiself,  (o  a  matter  to  which  my  attention  has  been 
drawn  for  the  first  time.  It  is  the  reply  of  the  three  Bishops,  to  a 
paper  read  before  the  House  of  Bishops  by  the  Committee, 

They  say.  Sir,  we  trust  it  will  not  be  considered  as  impertinent  if 
we  remark,  that  of  the  seven  members  of  the  Committee,  the  Chair- 
man, Mr.  Ryall,  was  a  zealous  supporter  of  the  accused,  and  Chairman 
of  the  Committee,  appointed  by  Bishop  Doane,  to  examine  Mr.  Ger- 
main's accounts,  and  did  not  disclose  Mr  Germain's  illegal  transfer 
to  Bishop  Doane,  which  was  one  of  the  charges  to  be  investigated; 
and  was  Chairman  of  the  Committee  who  reported  contrary  to  the 
truth,  that  the  Episcopal  Fund  was  safe.  He  was  a  trustee  of  the 
College,  where  his  children  had  been  educated. 

Mr.  Harker  was  a  creditor  of  the  Bishop,  and  so  interested  to  sus- 
tain him.  « 

Mr.  Potter  was  a  trustee  of  the  College,  and  a  judgment  creditor, 
and  was  having  a  like  interest, 

Mr.  Whitney  was  a  trustee  of  the  College,  and  so  having  a  like  in- 
terest. 

They  also  say  that  the  examination  made  by  the  Committe  was 
wholly  ex  parte. 

Now,  Sir,  I  have  not,  I  was  going  to  say  the  honor,  I  am  not  per- 
sonally acquainted  with  those  three  Bishops,  and  I  believe.  Si;-,  that  I 
am  a  stranger  to  tliem.  They  are  three  Bishops  of  the  Church  to 
which  I  belong,  I  am  a  stranger,  'i  hey  have  charged  me  here  Sir, 
•with  having  reported  contrary  to  the  truth  in  reference  to  that  Report. 
Where  did  they  obtain  this  information  ?  From  what  source  I  know 
not.     I  will  not,  Sir,  here  express  the  feelings  which  influence  mo  at 


16 

this  moment.  May  God  forgive  them.  But,  Sir,  all  I  have  to  say,  is 
that  it  is  the  first  time  in  my  life  that  I  was  ever  charged  with  it,  and 
that  too  from  strangers,  from  Bishops  in  the  Church  who  know  noth- 
ing of  me.  Sir,  I  am  charged  here  with  having  been  a  zealous  sup- 
porter of  yourself  What  ever  zeal,  Sir,  I  may  have  displayed  on  any 
occasion,  it  has  been  done  in  what  I  considered  the  cause  of  truth. 
Where  I  thought  there  was  wrong  [  opposed  it  by  my  voice  and  by 
my  vote ;  where  I  thought  it  was  right,  whether  in  reference  to  your- 
self or  otherwise,  b}'  my  voice  and  vote  I  upheld  it. 

I  was  Chairman  of  the  Committee  appointed  by  Bishop  Doane,  to 
examine  Mr.  Germain's  accounts,  and  did  not  disclose  Mr.  Germain's 
illegal  transfer  to  Bishop  Doane 

1  am  not  aware,  Sir,  that  Mr..  Germain  ever  made  an  illegal  trans- 
fer to  you,  Sir.  It  is  the  first  time  I  have  ever  heard  of  it.  The  evi- 
dence is  before  this  Convention.  It  is  to  be  found  in  the  Journals, 
and  in  his  examination  taken  before  the  Committee.  He  only  lOok 
the  same  security.  Sir,  of  you,  as  from  his  father  and  brother  If  there 
was  any  difTerent  I  know  not  of  it.  The  act  was  done  before  I  was 
appointed.  I  only  reported  upon  the  accounts.  I  said  nothing,  Sir, 
in  my  Report  in  reference  to  the  security  of  that  fund.  These  charges 
are  not  true  then.  Sir.  They  come  from  three  Bishops  of  the  Church, 
who  know  nothing  of  me,  and  probably  nothing  of  my  character ;  and 
in  the  absence  of  all  testimony  have  made  an  accusation  which  is 
false. 

But,  Sir,  it  is  said  that  I  was  the  trustee  of  the  College,  where  my 
children  had  been  educated.  I  have  two  sons  there,  and  I  hope  at 
the  next  session  to  have  another,  and  I  trust  they  will  be  graduates. 
I  prize  the  privilege.     What  is  meant  by  these  Bishops? 

Because  I  am  trustee  of  a  College,  and  have  two  sons  there,  does 
it  follow  that  I  am  incapable  of  doing  justice  to  you  or  the  Conven- 
tion ?  Do  they  mean  to  convey  the  idea  here,  that  I  am  under  any 
peculiar  obligation  to  that  Institution  ?  Have  I  not  paid  the  fees  for 
my  sons  there  ? 

My  colleague,  too,  Mr.  Harker,  was  a  creditor  of  the  Bishop,  and 
so  interested  in  sustaining  the  Bishop.  Sir,  is  Mr.  Harker?  I  know 
not  the  fact  whether  it  is  so  or  not;  but  does  that  prevent  him  from 
acting  and  deciding  as  a  man  should  act  in  his  position  ?  Was  there 
any  one  question  raised  before  that  Committee  in  which  there  was  not 
a  unanimity  of  opinion  ? 

Was  it  not  decided  at  the  opening,  that  our  meeting  should  not  be 
in  St.  Mary's  Church,  but  that  we  selected  from  the  outset  a  public 
house ;  from  there  adjourned  to  a  Hall  in  the  city  of  Burlington,  that 
we  might  be  above  suspicion  ?  It  was  proposed  to  go  into  the  vestry 
room  of  St.  Mary's  Church,  which  I  objected  to,  and  a  hall  was 
kindly  tenderd  to  us  by  the  Mayor  of  Builington. 

Mr.  Potter  was  a  trustee  of  the  College,  and  creditor,  and  so  having  a 
like  interest.  Sir,  how  was  he  creditor  ?  In  the  difficulties  of  the  time. 
Sir,  arising  from  circumstances  which  may  be  very  well  understood  in 
reference  to  a  certain  course  of  proceedings,  there  was  a  judgment 
obtained  against  Burlington  College.  Mr.  Potter,  my  colleague,  with 
that  liberality  which  chancterizes  the  man,  came  forward  and  ad- 
vanced the  money  and  took  an  assignment  of  the  judgment  secured. 
Does  this  prevent  him  from  being  a  competent  person  to  judge,  to  say 


17 

whether  you,  Sir,  wero  wrongly  or  rightly  charged  with  offenses?     I 
do  not  understand  it. 

But  Mr.  Whitney  was  a  trustee  of  the  Co'Iege,  and  so  having  a  like 
interest.  Yes,  Sir,  I  believe  he  had  a  like  interest.  We  were  willing, 
for  the  time,  to  forego,  postpone,  delay,  adjourn  the  business  in  which 
each  was  engaged,  at  great  sacrifice  to  meet  day  after  day,  and  work 
from  morning  to  night  in  the  investigation  of  truth,  because  it  was  a 
a  matter  of  duty.  There  was  nothing  dark,  nothing  bidden.  It  was 
all  put  in  black  and  white,  and  not  one  word  said  against  it.  And 
now,  Sir,  when  the  House  of  Bishops  itself  have  decided  and  deter- 
mined in  effect,  that  the  result  of  that  investigation  was  satisfactory  to 
them,  now,  at  the  eleventh  hour,  my  worthy  friend  would  rise  up  and 
say,  what  is  to  be  done?  'i  he  Convention  to  retrace  its  steps,  go 
back  for  two  or  three  years,  convene  again  the  House  of  l5ishops,  re- 
scind all  your  steps  !  Why,  Sir,  it  would  be  a  waste  of  time.  Sir,  I 
will  not  consume  any  more   of  your  time. 

Rev.  Mr.  Boggs —  Mr.  President,  is  it  not  customary  that  the  Re- 
port should  be  laid  on  the  table?  [The  Reporter  thinks  something 
more  was  added,  but  he  could  not  hear.^ 

Now  it  seems  to  me  unnecessary  that  this  question  should  be 
pressed.  For  myself,  I  am  perfectly  free  to  confess  that  I  do  not 
agree  with  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  Report;  neither  do  I  like 
the  Report  itself.  Nevertheless,  my  differing  from  it —  [The  Re- 
porter could  not  follow  the  Speaker.^ 

We  cannot  go  to  the  House  of  Bishops,  and  tell  them  we  do  not 
like  the  issue  they  have  made.     [Not  heard.^ 

Instead,  therefore,  of  now  pressing  its  adoption,  would  it  not  be 
better  to  have  this  Report  of  the  Committee  laid  on  the  table  ?  As 
long  as  it  is  the  property  of  the  house,  accepted  but  not  adopled,  it 
remains  properly  the  Committee's.  They  only  are  responsible 
for  the  priuciples  of  Canon  law  which  it  sets  forth  :  but  if  we  adopt  it, 
we  become  involved.  Therefore,  1  suggest  to  the  gentleman  from 
Elizabethtown  who  moved  the  adoption  of  the  Report,  to  withdraw 
his  motion.     If  he  refuses,  I  shall  move  to  amend. 

Me.  J.  J.  CuETwooD — I  have  no  objection  to  withdraw  my  mo- 
tion. 

The  Bishop. — I  shall  speak  here  on  the  perpendicular.  It  seems 
to  me  that  there  is  a  great  deal  of  confusion.  They  speak  of  the  pa- 
per read  before  the  Court  of  Bishops  as  a  Report,  or  the  Report ;  but 
it  was  not  a  Report,  nor  the  Report.  It  was  just  the  paper  which  this 
Convention,  on  the  14th  of  July,  instructed  that  Committee  to  prepare, 
and  gave  them  full  power  in  preparing,  and  then  agreed  to  take  it. 
Now — what  ?     [A  sentence  not  undersiood.'\ 

It  strikes  me  that  the  simple  view  of  the  subject  is  this:  That  Com- 
mittee were  appointed  to  lay  before  the  Court  of  Bishops  the  testi- 
mony taken  by  the  Committee  of  Investigation,  whose  Report  had 
been  made  to  an  adjourned  Convention,  and  adopted.  They  were 
also  appointed  to  prepare  a  memorial  or  representation  from  this  Con- 
vention, setting  forth  to  the  Court  of  Bishops  the  legal  and  canonical 
rights  of  this  Diocese,  and  its  position  in  the  matter.  The  paper 
which  has  been  read  to  day  comes  into  the  body  of  a  historical  report ; 

2 


18 

and  I  should  say  that  had  the  Committee  stood  aloof  and  not  reported 
that  paper,  I  should  have  expected  that  every  member  would  have 
risen  on  this  floor,  and  demanded  it.  Our  Committee,  acting  with 
authority,  have  brought  us  an  honest  and  faithful  report,  verbatim, 
•which  they  read  before  the  Court.  Now  it  seems  to  me,  that  if  you 
hesitate  to  adopt  this  paper,  you  take  it  as  their  effoit. 

I  do  not  see  any  difficulty  whatsoever,  neither  do  I  see  how  it  is 
possible  any  more  to  refuse  to  record  that  which  they  wrote  than  that 
which  they  did.  When  they  laid  before  the  Court  of  Bishops  the 
testimony  taken,  and  also  the  canonical  position  and  rights  of  the 
Diocese,  how  you  can  divide  between  these  two  acts,  I  cannot  con- 
ceive. After  all,  when  it  is  accepted,  it  goes  out  as  the  representation 
of  that  Committee,  indorsed  by  the  Court  of  Bishops. 

I  have  said  these  words  not  to  influence  any  body's  mind  at  all, 
but  to  present  the  matter  as  I  think  it  is.  It  is  an  act  done,  and  an 
act  reported.  It  is  an  act  done  by  power,  by  authority;  bound  to  be 
reported,  bound  to  be  adopted,  as  it  stands. 

The  Bishop  having  finished  his  remarks,  a  member  (whose  name 
the  Reporter  could  not  learn,)  made  a  few  remarks.  He  said — The 
Committee  did  what  they  considered  the  proper  thing,  and  have  re- 
ported what  they  did  to  the  Convention  which  delegated  to  them  the 
business.  It  now  remains  for  the  Convention  to  adopt  it.  It  now 
remains  for  us  to  indorse.  It  is  set  before  the  world  as  the  opinion 
of  this  Convention ;  therefore  it  is  incumbent  on  us  to  give  it  our 
formal  sanction.  Let  us  adopt  what  we  have  authorized,  and  then  if 
gentlemen  wish  to  bring  up  resolutions  with  different  sentiments  they 
can  do  so. 

Mr.  Walter  Rutherfurd  and  Hon.  Richard  P.  Thompson  followed 
with  a  few  remarks,  which  it  was  inconvenient  to  report  on  account 
of  the  noise.     [Cries  of  "  question,"  "  question."'\ 

Rev.  a.  B.  Patersox — Let  us  hear  those  gentlemen.  It  is  urged 
to  lav  the  Report  on  the  table  as  the  proper  course  to  be  pursued  in 
the  order  of  business.  I  see  no  good  reason  for  this.  1  have  been 
told  that  it  is  not  a  preliminary  proceeding — that  it  is  never  done. 
When  the  whole  subject  is  fairly  before  us,  we  are  called  upon  to 
meet  the  question  and  dispose  of  it. 

Judge  Ogden — Perhaps,  Sir,  it  would  be  proper  that  the  debate 
be  now  opened  on  what  may  be  considered  the  merits  of  the  question. 
The  motion  to  lay  on  the  table,  Sir,  if  I  understand  any  thing  about 
parliamentary  rules,     .     .     . 

Thk  Bishop — No,  no!  That  is  not  the  motion.  The  motion  is, 
to  adopt. 

Hon.  William  Halsted — Mr.  President,  if  nobody  feels  disposed 
to  discuss  this  question  I  am  inclined  to  do  it  myself. 

There  is  one  position  taken  by  the  Committee,  in  which  I  concur. 
If  1  mistake  not,  their  'angnage  reads  thus:  "The  power  to  present 
necessarily  includes  the  power  to  inquire."  I  concur  with  the  Com- 
mittee in  that  position,  but  I  deny  altogether  the  inference  they  draw 
from  that  position.  I  admit  that  if  this  body  that  appointed  the  Com- 
mittee of  Investigation  had  the  power  to  present,  they  had  the  power 
to  inquire.  But  I  deny  tliatthe  Convention  that  appointed  that  Com- 
mittee had  any  power  to  present.     If  I  understand  the  power  to  pre- 


19 

sent,  it  is  found  in  the  3d  Canon  of  the  Geneil  Convention,  to  which 
Canon  the  Committee  themselves  refer;  but  when  they  refer  to  this 
Canon,  they  do  not,  I  apprehend,  give  the  purport  nor  the  substance 
of  the  Canon.  They  refer  to  it  in  this  way  :  they  say,  Now  Canon 
third  of  '44  secures  to  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  to  which  the 
accused  Bishop  belongs.^tho  right  to  make  presentment,  whenever  the 
Convention  shall  determine  b}'  a  two-thirds  vote  of  each  order  that 
their  Bishop  has  committed  any  of  the  offenses  mentioned  in  the 
Canon,  and  should  be  put  upon  his  trial.  The  Committee  have  stopped 
short  at  the  most  important  and  controlling  feature  of  the  Canon ; 
and  that  is  the  proviso  which  I  propose  to  read.  "  Provided,  That  two- 
thirds  of  the  Clergy  entitled  to  seats  in  said  Convention  be  present, 
and  provided  also  that  two-thirds  of  the  parishes  in  actual  union  with 
the  said  Convention,  be  represented  therein." 

Now,  Sir,  the  three  presenting  Bishops  have  stated,  (and  I  want  to 
Bee  the  evidence  to  contradict  their  statement — because,  according  to 
my  view  of  it,  it  all  depends  upon  this)  ;  they  have  stated  that  there 
■were  not  two-thirds  of  each  order  present  at  this  special  Convention, 
nor  at  either  Convention.  And  if  two-thirds  of  both  orders  were  not 
present,  (two-thirds  entitled  to  scats,  is  the  language  of  the  Canon,  not 
to  votes,  and  the  same  language  is  carried  to  the  Canon  of  New  Jersey, 
as  I  understand  it,)  the  three  Bishops  then  take  this  objection  to  the 
action  of  the  Committee ;  and  if  they  are  right,  it  appears  to  me  to  be 
conclusive.  This  is  the  language  held  by  the  three  Bishops  :  The 
Canon  requires  that  for  such  purpose  two-thirds  of  the  Clergy  entitled 
to  seats  shall  be  present.  There  were  37  or  38  Clergymen  so  entitled 
in  New  Jersey,  but  only  22  were  present,  which  is  not  two  thirds  of 
37  or  38.  The  Canon  likewise  requires  that  two-thirds  of  the  parish- 
es in  union  with  the  Convention  be  represented  ;  but  tiiough  there 
were  59  parishes  in  the  Diocese  of  N.  J.,  only  28  were  so  represented. 
It  follows,  then,  that  tlie  Convention  was  never,  on  the  occasions 
referred  to,  so  constituted  as  to  make  a  valid  presentment  of  the  Bish- 
op. Now,  it  follows  as  an  irresistible  conclusion,  that  as  the  power  to 
inquire  only  comes  from  the  power  to  present,  and  as  the  power  to 
present  only  exists  prac\'\Ci\\\y  when  two-thirds  of  bo'h  orders  entitled 
to  seats  are  represented,  that  the  whole  proceeding  and  opening  of 
the  Committee  was  altogether  illegal,  and  their  action  equally  illegal 
and  unconstitutional.  But  I  think  the  three  Bishops  have  conceded 
too  much.  They  give  to  the  adversary  an  admission  to  which  they 
are  not  entitled.  They  say  there  were  37  Clergymen  so  entitled. 
Do  they  mean  to  say  that  but  so  many  were  entitled  to  seats'^.  If  I 
can  read  the  Journal,  I  find  that  there  are  (iO  Clergymen  entitled  ;  and 
I  find  in  the  Report  of  the  Bishop  to  the  Special  Convention,  he  givea 
the  number,  I  think,  (iO.  I  think  they  both  concur  ;  at  any  rate,  if 
any  gentleman  will  take  the  trouble  to  count,  he  will  find  that  there' 
are  altogether  04,  and  57  churches.  'I'hen  I  say  the  Bishops  conceded 
too  much,  when  they  said  there  were  only  37  or  38.  I  presume  they 
meanr  37  entitled  to  vote.  15ut,  suppose  they  were  right,  (which  I  do 
not  admit,)  1  say  there  were  CO  "  entilled  to  seats,"  which  is  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Canon.  I  submit,  therefore,  that,  starting  fiom  the  point 
upon  which  the  Committee  place  tliemselves,  that  the  power  of  the 
Convention  to  investigate,  arises  out  of  the  power  to  present,  there  was 


20 

no  power  to  investigate.  Now,  if  the  proposition  were  a  true  one,  that 
the  Convention  was  lawfully  competent  to  present,  suppose  nine- 
teen members  or  twenty  of  e-ich  order,  out  of  32,  had  made  a  recom- 
mendation that  the  Bishop  of  this  Diocese  be  presented ;  and  suppose 
that  a  Committee  had  made  out  charges,  and  the  Convention  decided 
that  the  Bishop  should  bo  presented  for  trial,  would  that  presentment 
have  been  valid?  It  would  not,  and  could  not  legally  have  been 
adopted.  The  Convention  had  not  the  power  to  adopt  it,  for  they 
lacked  the  requisite  two-thirds  of  each  order.  Now,  if  we  come  to 
the  Journal  of  the  Special  Convention,  we  do  not  find  the  names  of 
those  persons  who  composed  the  Convention  at  all.  The  list  of  the 
Convention  as  it  was  composed  on  the  14th  of  July,  1852,  was  not 
given  upon  the  Journal.  It  does  not  appear  whether  two  thirds  of 
the  Clergymen  or  Laymen  were  present.  Now,  if  gentlemen  will 
take  the  trouble  to  look  at  the  Journal  of  the  Convention  of  the  14th 
of  July,  they  will  find  that  the  vote  upon  the  first  resolution  was  adopt- 
ed as  follows:  Ayes  of  the  Clergy,  20;  of  the  Laity,  21  ;  and  the 
Nays  of  the  Clergy,  4,  and  of  the  Laity,  5.  24  Clergymen  voted,  and 
1  declined;  2G  Laity  voted,  21  in  the  affirmative,  and  5  in  the  nega- 
tive. 

That  is  nothing  like  two  thirds ;  it  is  not  two-thirds  of  38  or  37. 
But  if,  as  I  say,  the  Journal  shows  that  persons  entitled  to  seats  were 
60,  then  it  falls  very  short.  I  say  then,  and  I  affirm,  that  from  the 
proposition  laid  down  by  the  i>ishops  there  is  no  escape.  That  Con- 
vention had  no  power  to  do  anything  in  regard  to  the  matter  of  pre- 
senting. Therefore  it  was  that  I,  when  those  resolutions  were  offered, 
objected  to  them  as  being  illegal.  [The  Reporter  missed  a  Jew 
words '\ 

While  I  am  up,  and  inasmuch  as  the  gentleman  from  St.  Peler's 
has  attempted  to  show  and  prove  that  the  gentleman  from 
St.  Michael's  had  notice  to  attend '  and  did  not  attend,  and 
therefore  their  proceedings  were  not  ex  parte,  I  beg  leave  to  explain  to 
the  gentleman  my  view  of  that  matter. 

The  gentleman  fiom  St.  Michael's  had  nothing  to  do  with  that  iccu- 
sation ;  he  was  not  a  party.  After  the  three  Bishops  had  made  the 
presentment,  they  took  the  whole  business  out  of  my  hands.  I  had 
no  control  over  it.  The  presentment  was  not  made  in  my  langiiage» 
nor  upon  the  charges  which  I,  as  one  of  the  four  Laymen,  had  laid 
before  them.  They  did  not  take  all  my  charges  as  I  desired,  nor  adopt 
my  course  as  I  wished  them.  They  went  in  direct  opposition.  I 
never  would  have  conceded  that  their  action  depended  in  some  meas- 
ure upon  the  action  of  this  Convention.  Their  action  was  altogether 
contrary  to  my  views.  If  my  view  about  it  had  been  adopted,  no  such 
letter  would  have  been  written  to  the  accused,  because  there  was  no 
Canon  to  authorize  it  I  conceive  they  made  a  mistake,  when  they 
sent  that  letter.  Not  that  they  did  not  do  what  they  thought  best, 
but  they  made  a  mistake,  in  my  humble  judgment,  and  I  do  not  hold 
myself  responsible  for  that  at  all. 

Hon.  D.  B.  Ryall — The  presentment  of  the  three  Bishops  is  a  pre- 
sentment made  upon  charges  by  3'ourself  and  other  gentlemen  ;  and 
therefore,  for  the  Committee  to  give  notice  to  the  Bishops  of  Ohio, 
Virginia  and  Maine,  would  have  been  idle. 


21 

Mr.  Halsted— The  gentleman  has  a  right  to  take  his  view.  I  only 
mean  to  present  the  view  which  I  taiie,  and  this  ismj  view  of  the  mat- 
ter. The  charges  made  are  not  my  cluifges  :  they  are  merely  the 
statements  which  we  gathered  from  witnesses,  which  we  embodied  in 
due  shape ;  that  the  Bishops  undertook  the  business  of  inquiry,  and 
after  investigation,  adopted  just  as  many  of  the  charges  as  they  thought 
proper,  and  rejected  just  so  many  as  they  thought  proper.  When 
they  put  their  names  to  them,  they  assumed  the  responsibility.  If  I 
had  been  disposed,  if  it  had  been  here  wished,  I  could  not  have  con- 
trolled it.  Therefore  the  gentleman  is  altogether  mistaken  when  he 
supposes  that  by  sending  a  notice  to  me,  he  was  sending  a  notice  to  a 
party.  All  the  party  were  the  three  Bishops ;  and  if  the  party  who 
was  the  real  party  had  been  notified,  if  the  three  Bishops  had  been  no- 
tified, if  the}'  had  sent  notice  to  the  three  Bishops,  it  probably  might 
have  better  answered  the  purpose  of  the  Committee. 

Mr.  Ryall — I  will  ask  the  gentleman  if  he  did  not  address  a  note 
to  me,  asking  whether  he  should  appear  as  a  party  or  counsel  ?  and  my 
response  was,  that  the  gentleman  could  be  received  in  all  of  those 
characters, 

Mr.  Halsted — I  did  so.  Sir;  and  the  reason  was,  I  offered  an 
amendment  to  the  resolution  appointing  and  instructing  the  Commit- 
tee, That  any  person  might  be  present  and  cross  examine  witnesses, 
and  that  any  additional  charges  might  be  investigated  :  and  I  believe, 
Sir,  my  amendment  was  opposed  by  Judge  Ogden,  and  was  afterwards 
voted  down.  My  amendment  to  the  resolution  to  allow  the  papers  to 
be  produced,  was  voted  down  in  this  Convention  ;  and  I  say  that  this 
Committee  had  no  authority  to  admit  another  party,  when  the  Con- 
vention had  rejected  my  amendment.  My  object  in  writing  that  let- 
ter was  for  another  thing.  I  wanted  to  know  what  powers  the  Com- 
mittee conceived  they  had,  and  whether  they  would  put  upon  the  re- 
cord the  whole  evidence  they  had  before  them,  and  I  then  held  myself 
disposed  to  attend.  I  wanted  to  know  exactly  what  the  Committee 
thought  of  the  powers  they  possessed.  And  since  the  gentleman  put 
the  question  to  me,  I  will  ask  him  if  I  did  not  send  him  a  list  of  38 
witnesses,  and  specify  each  of  the  charges  to  be  proved  by  them  ? 

Mr.  Ryall — You  did ;  and  each  of  those  witnesses  were  subpe- 
naed. 

Mr,  Halsted — I  gave  the  gentleman  the  names  of  38  witnesses, 
under  the  specifications  ;  and  out  of  those  38  witnesses,  only  5  were 
examined. 

Mr.  Ryall — They  were  all  subpcnaed. 

Mr.  Halsied — I  do  not  deny  that,  Sir.  The  list  which  I  gave 
contained  the  names  of  38  witnesses.  Among  those  was  one  written 
Mr.  Button,  which  should  have  been  Mrs.  Button.  They  ascertained 
that  Mr.  Button  was  dead,  and  there  ceased  their  efforts. 

Here  is  a  copy  from  the  letter  which  I  sent,  containing  the  names 
of  the  witnesses.     You  will  see  what  I  cal\  garbling. 

It  reads  in  this  way,  what  is  left  out : 

"If  the  Committee  are  desirous  to  make  'a  full  investigation'  into 
the  charges  against  Bishop  Boane,  and  to  attain  truth,  they  may  go  a 
great  way  towards  the  accomplishment  of  that  object,  by  obtaining 


22 

and  laying  before  the  Convention  the  following  documents,  as  well  as 
the  evidence  of  the  following  witnesses  : 

Si'EciFiCATioN  I.  1st— A  Certified  copy  of  the  assignment  of  Geo. 
W.  Doane  to  Garret  S.  Canhon-and  Robert  B.  Aertsen,  dated  26th 
March,  1849,  with  the  inventory  of  estate,  real  and  personal,  thereto 
annexed,  together  with  the  oaths  of  George  W.  Doane,  thereto  an- 
;nexed. 

2d — A  certificate  from  the  Clerk  of  the  County  of  Burlington,  of 
the  amount  of  the  mortgages  and  judgments  against  G.  W.  Doane. 

3d — A  certificate  of  judgments  confessed  by  G.  W.  Doane  as  Pres- 
ident of  the  Trustees  of  Burlington  College,  in  the  Supreme  Court 
and  elsewhere. 

Specification  II.  1st — Obtain  from  Bishop  Doane  an  exact  list 
of  his  creditors  at  the  time  of  his  assignment,  and  the  amount  of  the 
debts  due  to  each.  If  he  and  Mr.  Aertsen  cannot  make  it  out,  let 
them,  or  the  Committee,  apply  to  Mrs.  C.  Lippincott,  who,  the  Bishop 
■says  in  his  protest  and  appeal  "  was  most  intimately  acquainted  with 
all  tliG  business  risks  and  relations  of  the  undersigned." 

2d — Obtain  from  the  Bishop  or  Mr.  Aertsen  or  Mrs.  Lippincott,  an 
account  of  all  the  sums  of  money  expended  in  or  about  ihe  Institu- 
tions, St.  Mary's  Hall  and  Burlington  College. 

Specification  III.  Obtain  a  copy  of  Mr.  Binney's  pamphlet,  and 
address  Mr.  Binney  a  letter  requesting  him  to  give  a  statement  of  the 
facts  relative  to  the  transaction  between  him  and  Bishop  Doane." 


This  letter  proceeded,  giving  specifications,  and  giving  under  each 
specification  the  names  of  the  witnesses  or  the  documents  to  prove  it. 
NovA',  by  turning  to  the  Journal  of  the  proceedings  of  the  adjourned 
Convention,  held  at  N^ewark  on  the  14th  of  July  last,  page  139,  you 
will  see  how  this  letter  was  garbled,  by  the  person,  whoever  he  was, 
that  had  charge  of  the  publication  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  Investigation.  All  that  is  published  of  this  letter  is  a  list  of 
the  names  [of  thirty-eight  witnesses;  and  out  of  this  number  but 
five  were  examined.  And  yet  the  Convention  passed  a  resolution  say- 
ing, what  the  ( 'ommittee  themselves  would  not  say,  viz  :  that  this  was 
"  a  full  searching  and  honest  inquiry  info  the  allegations  against  the 
Bishop." 

Notwithstanding  all  this,  the  gentleman  has  said  that  it  was  not  an 
ea;^ar/e  examination.  The  gentleman  also  says  that  the  witnesses 
were  sworn  to  testify  the  truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth.  I  know  that 
two  of  the  most  important  witnesses  only  answered  such  questions  as 
were  put  to  them,  and  that  [a  few  icords  not  understood  by  the  Re- 
porter.'] So  much,  therefore,  in  regard  to  the  idea  that  this  was  not 
an  ex  parte  examination.  I  consider  it  altogether  ex  parte,  in  the 
technical  and  real  sense  of  the  term. 

Hon.  D.  B.  Ryall — Mr.  Halsted,  as  Chairman  of  the  Committee, 
I  say  that  they  were  sworn  to  tell  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and 
nothing  but  the  truth,  and  then  requested  to  state  all  that  they  knew 
about  the  matter. 

Judge  Ogden — I  rise  to  a  point  of  order.  My  point  of  order  is,  that 
we  are  discussing  matters  with  which  we  have  nothing  to  do.  At  the 
Convention  on  the  26th  of  May,  a  Committee  was  appointed,  clothed 


23 

with  power  to  make  a  certain  investigation.  That  Committee  re- 
ported their  action  to  an  adjourned  meeting  on  the  14th  of  July,  The 
records  of  that  Convention  show  that  the  Report  was  accepted, 
adopted  and  approved.  And  that  Cofivention  appointed  another 
Committee  to  wait  on  the  Court  of  Bishops  and  lay  before  them  the 
result  of  the  Convention  of  the  14th  of  July,  and  also  lay  before  the 
House  of  Bishops  a  statement  of  the  position  and  rights  of  the  Dio- 
cese. That  Committee  have  done  their  act,  and  reported  to  us  a  his- 
tory of  their  proceedings.  The  question  is  not,  what  have  we  to  do 
with  this  or  that  ?  but  the  simple  question  under  the  motion  made  and 
seconded,  is,  shall  we  adopt  their  Report  ?  I  suggest  that  whether  it 
will  not  shorten  the  gentleman's  argument — [//te  rest  of  the  sentence 
was  not  heard.^ 

Hojv.  William  Halsted — The  learned  Judge  will  recollect  that 
the  matter  before  the  Convention  was  the  Report  of  the  Committee  of 
this  Convention.  In  arguing  the  adoption  of  that  Report,  the  gentle- 
man from  St.  Peter's  went  out  of  his  way,  to  attack  the  Reply  of  the 
three  presenting  Bishops.  Now,  surely,  v/hen  those  three  Bishops 
are  attacked^  and  nobody  is  here  to  defend  them,  it  cannot  be  out  of 
order  to  speak  for  them.  But,  if  this  defense  of  the  action  of  the 
Bishops  is  not  in  order,  why  was  not  the  introduction  of  the  matter 
by  the  gentleman  from  St.  Peter's  questioned,  as  out  ot  order  ?  The 
thing  speaks  for  itself — it  needs  no  comments. 

However,  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  let  that  matter  pass,  and  pro- 
ceed to  the  remarks  I  propose  to  make  in  regard  to  the  other  part  of 
this  question. 

As  I  stated  before,  the  first  reason  why  I  cannot  adopt  the  Report 
of  the  Committee,  is  that,  in  my  opinion,  it  is  based  upon  an  erroneous 
view  of  the  law  under  which  they  act.  If  I  am  right  in  that,  then  the 
whole  of  the  Report  is  erroneous,  and  all  the  arguments  based  upon 
that  showing,  must  be  erroneous. 

If  this  Convention  allow  this  Report  to  be  adopted,  without  a  free 
expression  of  opinion  on  the  subject,  it  will  go  abroad  as  an  undis- 
puted adoption ;  and  consequently  it  must  adopt  also  those  views 
which  the  Committee  have  thought  proper  to  separate  and  read  be- 
fore this  Convention — for  the  purpose  of  producing  an  effect,  I  pre- 
sume. It  was  not  necessary,  according  to  my  view,  that  the  Report 
should  be  read  here.  It  would  have  answered  every  purpose,  to  have 
said  that  they  had  presented  their  Report  to  the  House  of  Bishops. 
But  inasmuch  as  that  Report  has  been  read  here,  in  the  presence  of 
the  assembled  Convention,  and  of  this  audience,  and  as  that  Report 
is,  certainl}',  very  eloquently  drawn,  and  very  plausible,  it  will  pei haps 
have  its  efiect.  And  therefore  I  hold  that  those  gentlemen  who  do  not 
concur  with  the  sentiments  put  forth  in  that  paper,  ought  to  have  the 
opportunity  of  expressing  their  dissent.  The  adoption  should  not  be 
pressed  till  we  have  spoken  our  opinions  upon  it. 

I  hold,  in  the  next  place,  that  when  the  Convention  in  July  ap- 
pointed that  Committee,  that  that  Committee  had  no  right  to  present 
a  memorial  of  that  kind.  And  I  go  further;  I  say  we  have  a  right 
here  to  discuss  the  propriety  of  that  Committee  interfering  with  the 
regular  canonical  proceeding  of  the  Court  of  Bishops.  I  say  that 
this  thing  could  not  have  been  contemplased,  that  a  Committee  of  this 


24 

body,  or  any  other  body,  should  intervene  between  the  accused  and 
the  accusers,  and  say  that  they  asked  that  Court  not  to  proceed. 
They  exceeded,  in  my  view,  wholly,  the  power  which  they  possessed. 

Here  some  person  said,  The  gentleman  will  read  the  resolui  ion.  It 
was  read  as  follows : 

"  Resolved,  That  a  Committee  of  four  clergymen  and  three  laymen 
be  appointed,  by  ballot,  to  lay  the  Report  of  the  Committee  and  the 
accorripanying  evidence  before  the  Court  appointed  for  the  trial  of  the 
Bishop,  and  that  such  committee  present  a  written  representation  on 
behalf  of  this  Convention,  setting  forth  its  legal  and  canonical  position 
and  rights,  and  earnestly  and  respectfully  urging  the  Right  Reverend 
Bishops  to  consider,  whether  (apart  from  all  abstract  questions  of 
power,)  it  will  be  wise  or  just,  or  for  the  peace  of  God's  church,  to 
proceed  further  upon  the  charges  laid  before  them." 

Now  what  do  thev  undertake  to  do?  They  were  in  the  first  place 
to  lay  the  Report  of  the  Committee  before  the  Bishops,  and  then  this 
Committee  are  to  present  a  written  representation  on  behalf  of  the 
Convention,  setting  forth  the  legal  and  canonical  rights  of  ihe  Dio- 
cese. They  undertook  to  go  on  and  set  forth  the  position  of  the  Dio- 
cese, and  some  of  those  leading  canonical  rights.  They  say  that  they 
have  the  first  right  to  try  ;  and  they  say  that,  the  Bishops, 
having  no  power  to  try,  must  stop  the  prosecution  which  had  been 
commenced  in  that  Court,  and  send  it  back  here.  {The  Reporter  lost 
a  few  sentences  here.'] 

But  further,  it  calls  earnestly  and  respectfully  upon  the  Right  Rev- 
erend Bishops  to  consider,  whether  apart  from  all  abstract  questions 
of  power,  they  should  proceed  with  the  trial.  Now  I  say,  to  construe 
this  resolution  in  the  wa}'  which  they  undertake  to  construe  it,  is  to 
construe  it  in  such  a  manner  as  no  member  had  the  least  conception 
of.  I  venture  to  say,  that  no  lawyer  would  allow  such  a  construction 
of  this  Resolution.  When  a  Bishop  has  been  presented  for  trial,  no 
third  party  can  lawfully  be  permitted  to  intervene  between  the  pre- 
sentment and  the  action  of  the  Court.  There  is  no  provision  for  such 
intervention  in  the  Canon.  The  Canon  reads  thus.  It  is  Canon  HI 
of  1844,  Section  3. 

"  Upon  a  Presentment  made  in  either  of  the  modes  pointed  out  in 
Section  1  of  this  Canon,  the  course  of  proceeding  shall  be  as  follows: 

"  Section  3,  The  Presiding  Bishop  shall,  without  delay,  cause  a 
copy  of  the  Presentment  to  be  served  on  the  accused,  and  shall  give 
notice,  with  nil  convenient  speed,  to  the  several  Bishops  then  being 
within  the  territory  of  the  United  States,  appointing  a  time  and  place 
for  their  assembling  together;  and  any  number  thereof,  not  being  less 
than  seven,  other  than  the  Bishops  presenting,  then  and  there  assem- 
bled, shall  constitute  the  Court  for  the  trial  of  the  accused;  he  shall 
also  at  the  same  time,  cause  at  least  thirtj'  days'  notice  of  the  time 
and  place  of  meeting  to  be  given,  both  to  the  accused  and  to  the  parties 
presenting  him,  by  a  snmmoner  to  be  appointed  by  him,  and  shall  also 
call  on  the  accused  by  a  written  summons  to  appear  and  answer. 
The  place  of  trial  shall  always  be  within  the  Diocese  in  which  the  ac- 
cused Bishop  resides.  If  the  accused  Bishop  appear  hpfore  proceeding 
to  trial,  he  shall  be  called  on  by  the  Court  to  say  whether  he  is  guilty 
or  not  guilty  of  the  offense  or  offenses  charged  against  him ;  and  on  his 


25 

neglect  or  refusal,  the  plea  of  not  guilty  shall  be  entered  for  him,  and 
the  trial  shall  proceed/' 

Here,  then,  the  trial  by  a  Court  of  Bishops  is  defined  and  restricted 
by  the  terms  of  the  Canon.  The  accused  has  only  to  appear,  and  to 
plead  either  guilty  or  not  guilty ;  and  then  the  Canon  says,  the  trial 
shall  proceed.  Now,  I  say,  ti'at  it  never  could  have  been  contem- 
plated that  any  other  body  should  get  up  in  Court  when  the  present- 
ment is  about  to  be  read,  and  say :  May  it  please  your  honors,  we 
think  you  ought  not  to  proceed  with  this  case.  We  have  nothing  to  do 
with  it;  we  are  outsiders;  but  we  take  an  interest  in  the  matter,  and 
beg  that  you  will  not  go  on.  I  would  ask  my  learned  friend,  the 
Judge,  if  he  ever  had  any  such  occurrences  as  this  at  his  Bar;  and  I 
ask  him  what  he  would  do  if  a  party  not  recognized  by  the  law,  should 
undertake  to  interfere  with  the  course  of  justice?  The  learned  Judge 
would  say  :  What  business  have  you  here  ?  It  is  pointed  out  by  the  law 
that  the  Court  shall  proceed  ;  it  is  perfectly  well  understood.  We  do 
not  know  you  as  a  party  here  at  all.  But  now  it  is  said  that  the  Diocese 
may  importune  the  Court  of  Bishops,  and  say,  no,  no,  Sirs,  don't  try 
the  accused;  we  think  there  is  nothing  in  these  charges,  and  therefore 
we  beg  you  will  not  proceed.  Why,  it  seems  to  me,  that  if  the  Com- 
mittee were  entirely  satisfied,  they  are  bound,  as  members  of  the 
Church,  to  have  the  Bishop  cleared  of  those  charges;  and  I  say  that 
it  never  was  stated  to  the  Convention,  that  the  Bishop  of  this  Diocese 
wished  a  trial,  and  that  we  had  appointed  a  Committee  to  prevent  that 
trial  taking  place  ;  and  I  say  they  did  the  Bishop  injustice.  If  he  was 
innocent,  as  they  believed  him  to  be,  it  was  their  bounden  duty  as 
members  of  the  Church,  t<>  vindicate  the  Bishop.  Does  not  the  world 
ask,  does  not  the  peace  of  the  Church  require,  that  the  criminations  of 
the  Bishop  be  stopped?  And  it  is  only  to  be  stopped  by  having  a 
regular  trial;  and  if  the  Bishop  were  innocent,  and  wished  a  trial,  it 
was  the  duty  of  those  individuals  to  say  he  shall  have  a  trial. 

1  ask,  who  has  any  confidence  in  the  Report  of  the  Committee? 
Nine  Bishops  to  eight,  have  said  they  have  no  confidence  in  it. 

Mr.  Halsted  was  here  interrupted  by  the  Bishop,  who  said.  You  have 
intentionally  misstated  the  facts.  There  were  not  nine  Bishops  who 
said  they  had  no  confidence  in  the  representation  of  the  Committee. 
There  was  not  one  Bishop  who  said  so.  The  issue  was  this,  and  upon 
the  motion  made  that  the  Court  proceed  no  further,  eight  of  the  Bishops 
voted  in  favor  of  it,  and  six  against  it.  It  was  thus  decided  not  to 
proceed.    I  cannot  permit  these  false  statements  to  go  uncontradicted. 

Mk.  Halsted  continued — The  statement  which  1  made  is  not  false 
— it  is  true,  and  I  will  prove  it.  The  three  presenting  Bishops  de- 
clared before  the  Court  that  they  believed  the  accused  Bishop  to  be 
guilty,  and  that  they  stood  prepared  to  prove  their  charges,  and  six 
of  the  Bishops  were  in  favor  of  trying.  Now  that  makes  nine,  ac- 
cording to  my  view.  Eight  of  them  voted  not  to  proceed  with  the 
trial. 

I  say  then,  and  I  affirm  it,  that  nine  Bishops  of  the  Church  have 
declared  that  this  trial  ought  to  go  on,  and  it  was  the  duty  of  the 
Court  that  the  trial  should  have  proceeded.  I  say  again,  who  can 
have  confidence  in  the  Report  of  the  Committee  ?  1  say  nothing 
against  the  gentlemen  of  the  Committee.     But  what  is  the  rule  of 


26 

law?  The  first  is  to  do  justice,  and  the  second  is  to  satisfy  the  public 
that  justice  has  been  done.  Now  I  ask  the  Chairman  of  that  Com- 
mittee, himself,  if  he  as  counsel,  had  been  trying  a  case  for  one  of  his 
clients  before  a  jury,  and  a  gentleman  situated  as  he  is  in  regard  to 
one  of  the  parties,  was  summoned  upon  that  jury,  whether  he  would 
accept  him  as  a  jur^'man  ?  Most  assuredly  that  gentleman  would 
not;  as  an  honorable  lawyer  he  could  not  but  do  otherwise.  Now  I 
ask,  who  could  have  confidence  in  a  Committee  composed  of  the 
Bishop's  creditors  ?  I  say  that  no  man  can  have  any  such  confidence, 
and  that  the  public  could  not.  '1  hey  were  an  interested  party,  and 
those  very  motives,  not  at  all  dishonorable  to  those  gentlemen,  which 
made  them  desirous  to  shield  the  l^ishop,  unfitted  them  to  judge  im- 
partially.    We  are  all  operated  upon  by  our  feelings  and  prejudices. 

Mr.  Rvall — I  am  not  the  Bishop's  creditor. 

Mr.  Halsted — No  sir;  but  some  others  of  the  Committtee  I 
mean.  Three  of  them  are  trustees,  one  is  creditor,  and  all  are  inter- 
ested 

Mr.  Potter — I  undertake  to  say,  Mr.  Halsted,  that  you,  nor  no- 
body know  whether  I  am  a  creditor  or  not. 

Mr.  Halsted — I  state  as  a  fact  that  Mr.  Potter  had  a  judgment 
against  the  College.  Here  is  the  document  in  my  pocket,  if  you  want 
to  see  it. 

Hon.  R.  p.  Thompson — I  rise  to  a  question  of  order.  Is  there 
one  single  word  in  the  gentleman's  argument  addressed  to  the  point 
before  the  Convention  ?  The  subject  is  a  simple  one,  and  yet  he  is 
going  into  an  attack  on  the  Committee.  Now,  I  do  hold  that  it  is  not 
proper  to  debate  in  this  way. 

The  Bishop — I  consider  that  the  gentleman  has  been  out  of  order 
during  the  whole  discussion,  and  most  exceedingly  personal,  and  must 
decide  that  he  is  out  of  order. 

Mr.  Halsted — I  presumed  that  you  would  so  decide,  and  therefore 
moved  at  the  proper  time,  that  we  should  go  into  Committee  of  the 
Whole. 

The  Bishop — You  cannot  make  a  motion  to  go  into  Committee 
of  the  Whole  while  I  occupy  this  chair. 

Mr.  Halsted — I  had  a  perfect  right  to  reply  to  the  gentleman  from 
St.  Peter's,  and  I  had  a  perfect  right  to  answer  his  attack  on  the  three 
Bishops. 

Hon.  R.  p.  Thompson — The  way  of  settling  this  matter  is,  when  a 
man  is  out  of  order,  to  pronounce  it  so,  and  the  gentleman  is  to  take 
his  seat. 

Mr.  Joel  W.  Condit — In  my  judgment  the  gentleman  is  entirely 
out  of  order.  If  it  therefore  be  proper,  I  move  that  the  motion  to 
adopt  the  Report  of  the  Committee  be  laid  on  the  table. 

A  Member — I  suppose  the  subject  can  be  called  up  again  hereafter 
for  further  discussion,  and  if  so,  I  have  no  objection  to  lay  it  on  the 
table  for  the  present.  But  if  it  is  meant  to  keep  it  out  of  the  way,  by 
laying  on  the  table,  I  am  opposed  to  it. 

The  Bishop — There  has  already  been  too  much  discussion  on  the 
subject,  and  it  ought  to  stop. 

The  question  on  laying  the  motion  to  adopt  on  the  table,  is  now  the 
question. 


27 

Mr.  W.  Rutherfurd — That  subject  has  not  yet  been  debated  at 
all :  and  I  take  it,  that  if  it  is  laid  on  the  table,  it  will  shut  off  discus- 
sion altogether. 

The  Bishop — It  is  not  in  order  to  speak  under  the  motion  to  lay 
on  the  table. 

The  question  is  now  to  lay  on  the  table  a  motion  to  adopt  the  Re- 
port of  the  Committee. 

Mr.  Thompsoiv — When  it  is  laid  on  the  table,  what  becomes  of  it? 

It  lays  there,  and  sleeps  the  sleep  of  death ;  and  thus  a  Committee 
appointed  by  this  Convention,  instructed  to  go  and  do  a  certain  thing, 
after  having  returned  and  stated  to  this  Convention  a  narrative  of 
their  procedings,  shall  have  that  narrative  hushed,  by  having  no  part 
therein — not  permitted  to  state  to  the  Convention,  in  such  a  way 
that  the  Diocese  may  know,  what  they  have  done.  I  trust  that  no 
such  injustice  will  be  done  to  the  Committee.  They  have  a  right 
to  have  their  proceedings  recorded  among  the  proceedings  of  this 
Convention.  It  is  also  customary,  when  the  report  of  a  committee  is 
read,  to  accept  and  adopt  it.  1  recollect  two  years  ago  the  same 
thing  took  place  in  this  Convention  ;  the  Report  of  the  Committee 
was  I  rinted  in  the  Journals;  and  if  this  course  had  been  taken  in  the 
present  instance,  all  this  miserable  discussion  would  have  been  pre- 
vented. 

The  resolution  to  adopt  the  Report  of  the  Committee  was  with- 
drawn by  the  mover. 

Hon.  Wsi.  Halsted — I  now  move,  That  we  go  into  Committee  of 
the  Whole. 

The  Bishop — You're  out  of  order.  Sir,  you're  out  of  order.  I 
can't  permit  this  interference  with  my  rights. 

Mr.  Halsted — [amid  cries  of  "  order,"  "  order."'\ — I  insist  on  it, 
that  my  motion  is  not  out  of  order.  It  is  right  and  proper;  and  I 
appeal  to  the  Rules  of  Order  adopted  by  this  Convention,  in  which 
provision  is  made  for  going  into  Committee  of  the  Whole.  I  repeat 
it,  Sir,  that  it  is  not  I  who  am  out  of  order,  but  it  is  you  who  are  out 
of  order,  for  you  have  refused  to  put  my  motion  which  I  made.  {Re- 
peated cries  of  "  order."] 

Mr.  Morton — I  move  that  the  gentleman  be  expelled  from  this 
Convention.     I  move  that  we  expel  him. 

Mr.  Halsted — I  should  like  to  see  them  do  that.  I  have  my 
rights,  and  1  shall  maintain  them.      [Much  co7fusion.] 

Order  being  restored,  Mr.  J.  J.  Chetwood  rose,  and  moved  as  fol- 
lows : 

"  Whereas,  the  Court  of  Bishops,  assembled  on  the  7th  of  Octo- 
ber, instant,  did,  on  the  15th,  adopt  the  following  Orders,  to  wit: 

"  Whereas,  previous  to  the  making  of  the  presentment  now  before 
this  Court,  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey  have  investigated  most  of 
the  matters  contained  therein,  and  have  determined  that  there  was  no 
ground  for  presentment:  Therefore,  Ordered,  That  as  to  the  matters 
transacted  upon  by  said  Convention,  this  Court  do  not  feel  themselves 
called  vpon  to  proceed  further. 

"  Whereas,  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey  stands  pledged  to  investi- 
gate any  charges  against  the  Bishop  that  may  be  presented  from  every 
responsible   source ;    and   whereas,   a  Special   Convention   has  been 


28 

called,  shortly  to  meet  in  reference  to  the  new  matters  contained  in 
the  presentment  now  before  the  Court.  Therefore,  Ordered,  That 
this  Court,  reljing  upon  the  said  pledge,  will  not  now  proceed  to  any 
further  action  in  the  premises :" 

Therefore,  Resolved,  Tiiat  the  new  matters  contained  in  the  pre- 
sentment  read  before  that  Court,  be  referred  to  Jas.  Potter,  J.  H. 
Wakefield,  C.  M.  Marker,  D.  P>.  Ryall,  T.  H.  Whitney,  Henry  Mc- 
Farlan,  and  J.  L.  McKnight,  with  instructions  to  proceed  with  dili- 
gence and  with  all  convenient  dispatch,  to  make  a  full  investigation 
of  the  new  matters  contained  in  the  paper  aforesaid,  and  that  they  re- 
port to  the  Convention. 

Resoloed,  That  the  Committee  have  power  to  fill  any  vacancy  oc- 
curring among  its  members. 

Resolved,  That  when  this  Convention  adjourn,  they  adjourn  to  meet 
in  this  Church  at  10  o'clock,  a.  m.,  on  the  1st  of  December. 

Hon.  R.  p.  Thompson — ?ylr.  President,  I  move  to  strike  out  all  the 
names  in  the  first  Resolution.  I  have  not  done  this  without  reflecting. 
It  does  seem  to  me  proper,  that  this  investigation  should  be  referred 
to  others  than  those  who  served  on  the  former  Committee.  Not  that 
I  have  any  doubts  as  to  the  impartiality  with  which  the  same  Com- 
mittee who  conducted  the  former  investigation  would  act  in  this  case, 
if  it  is  referred  to  them  to  examine:  It  is  entirely  on  other  grounds — 
as  a  matter  of  expediency  and  propriety.  While  I  make  this  motion, 
I  have  the  most  perfect  confidence  in  the  gentlemen  named. 

Mr.  Chetwood — I  accept  (he  amendn;ent  most  cheerfully ;  but  in- 
asmuch as  reference  was  made  to  them  in  the  argument  of  the  three 
Bishops  before  the  Court,  impeaching  their  veracity',  and  reflecting 
upon  several  of  them  as  unfit  to  conduct  an  investigation  which  the 
Convention  had  referred  to  them ;  I  felt  it  my  duty,  under  the  cir- 
cumstances, that  these  gentlemen  be  retained,  to  show  to  those  Bish- 
ops and  to  the  world,  that  every  citizen  of  New  Jersey  who  knows 
them,  has  unabated  confidence  in  them. 

Rev.  Mr.  Starr — I  rise  to  a  question  of  order.  It  has  already 
been  said  on  this  floor,  that  the  Canon  of  the  General  Convention  re- 
quires that  there  shall  be  present  two  thirds  of  the  Clergy  of  the  Dio- 
cese entitled  to  seats,  and  lay-delegates  from  two-thirds  of  the  par- 
ishes. I  rise  to  know  whether,  now,  this  is  the  case.  I  would  like, 
therefore,  a  call,  to  know  what  clergymen  are  entitled  to  seats,  and 
how  many  are  present ;  and  what  laymen  entitled  to  seats,  and  how 
many  are  present  in  this  Convention. 

The  Bishop — [The  opening  sentence  not  heard-l  In  the  first  place, 
nobody  has  here  pretended  that  the  Canon  requires  two  thirds,  except 
in  case  where  the  Convention  proceeds  to  present.  And,  suppose  an 
inquiry  now  to  be  instituted ;  the  time  for  the  call  will  be  when  the 
Committee,  to  which  the  charges  are  referred,  report  to  the  Conven- 
tion. But  this  matter  was  fully  discussed  before  the  Court  of  Bishops. 
In  addition  to  the  discussion  in  the  pamphlet  printed,  one  of  the  Bish- 
ops stated  that  the  strength,  virtue  and  essence  of  the  whole  matter 
lay  in  these  two  things:  that  the  Convention  of  the  14th  of  July,  in 
order  to  be  able  to  present,  must  have  been  constituted  of  two-thirds 
of  each  order;  and  then  a  round  assertion,  which  was  far  from  true, 
that  two-thirds  were  not  there.     Now,  then,  upon  that,  the  Court  of 


29 

Bishops  decided  that  the  application  of  the  two-thirds  principle  does 
not  hold,  except  on  the  direct  motion  to  present.  By  a  unanimous 
decision,  they  decided,  (the  President  of  the  Court,  the  Bishop  of  Ver- 
mont, saying  that  it  was  not  at  all  applicable,)  decided  that  though 
two-thirds  were  necessary  in  order  to  present,  yet  a  vote  not  to  pre- 
sent, only  required  the  usual  quorum ;  and  no  Bishop  of  the  Court 
dissented  from  this  opinion. 

But  I  have  a  word  to  sny  further.  As  I  proved  before  the  Court, 
there  were  iivo  thirds  present  at  the  last  Convention.  The  facts  were 
not  correctly  stated  by  the  three  Bishops.  Doubtless  they  had  beeu 
told,  as  they  stated  ;  and  their  informant  is,  I  think,  now  present  in  this 
Convention.     I  hope,  he  meant  to  state  the  thing  as  it  was. 

I  could  have  saved  the  gentleman  from  St.  Michael's  a  great  deal  of 
trouble,  if  he  had  come  to  me.  Why,  in  regard  to  the  Clergy,  34  are 
the  Clergy  entitled  to  seats  in  this  Ci)nvention,  and  wi(hin  two  or  three 
fractions  of  a  man,  40  were  theie.  I  believe  the  gentleman  is  honestly 
in  error.  I  would  like  to  pat  him  righc  on  this  and  all  other  subjects, 
if  he  would  let  me.  [A  few  words  not  heard.^  Now  I  wish  this 
matter  understood.  The  two-thirds  principle  never  will  a[iply  unless 
you  present ;  and  if  it  is  applied  under  the  question  of  presentment,  it 
cannot  be  denied.  I  merely  say  this  to  save  time — nothing  else  in  the 
world.     If  anybody  else  could  have  said  it,  I  had  rather  they  would. 

Mk.  ArchbrGifforu — I  admit.  Sir,  that  upon  this  occasion  there 
is  no  necessity  of  having  the  number  of  two-thirds  of  each  order  pres- 
ent. It  is  requisite,  under  a  certain  issue  stated  in  the  Canon  concern- 
ing the  Presentment  and  Trial  of  a  Bishop.  But  this  is  not  an  occa- 
sion of  presentment — that  is  most  ceitain.  Neither  is  it  nocessiry,  I 
conceive,  in  regard  to  the  business  now  before  us. 

But  the  matter  vviiich  I  have  in  my  mind  at  present  is  a  question  of 
propriety — of  right,  in  respect  to  tins  body.  1  do  not  conceive,  Sir, 
that  the  settlement  of  this  question  is  of  any  consequence  as  to  the 
main  issue.  It  was  not  necessarily  involved  in  the  real  issue  before 
the  Court.  I  am  a  friend  to  order  and  strict  laws  ;  but  I  cannot  see 
that  this  is  of  any  consequence  now,  and  it  is  not  the  time  for  it. 

The  Bishop — I  laid  it  down  only  as  a  simple  historical  fact. 

A  Member — It  appears  to  mo  that  the  call  made  by  the  gentleman 
from  Trenton  is  very  summarily  disposed  of,  and  the  course  taken  in 
regard  to  it  strikes  me  as  being  wrong.  Here  is  a  member  of  this 
body,  who  gets  up  and  states  a  fact,  as  required  under  the  Canon. 
He  asks  if  there  is  a  Canonical  number  present.  Is  it  not  proper  that 
such  should  be  the  case  ?  It  appears  to  me.  Sir,  that  it  is  a  very 
proper  question. 

Anothkr  Memrer — Does  the  gentleman  mean  to  make  a  motion, 
or  what  does  he  intend  by  his  remarks  ?  The  member  interrogated 
replied  :  !  would  simply  say  that  I  did  not  intend  to  make  a  motion 
at  all.  I  meant  what  1  remark^'d  as  a  suggestion.  I  care  not  whether 
it  is  adopted  or  not. 

[Here  some  remarks  were  made  between  Mr.  Ryall  and  Mr.  Parker, 
which  the  Reporter  was  unable  to  nofe.'\ 

Mk.  Bkowning — The  particular  business  now  before  us  I  under- 
stand to  be,  the  appointment  of  a  Committee  of  Investigation  on  the 
new  charges  which  have  been  made.     The  motion,  as  first  made,  was 


30 

that  the  names  of  certain  gentlemen  who  acted  as  Committee  on  the 
former  investigation,  should  constitute  this  Committee.  An  amend- 
ment to  strike  out  all  the  names  included  in  the  Resolution  has  been 
moved  and  accepted.  It  then  stands  in  the  shape  of  a  Resolution  to 
appoint  a  Committee,  but  leaving  the  namps  to  be  afterwards  supplied. 
And  permit  me  to  say  a  single  word  in  relation  to  that,  whilst  I  am 
up.  I  have  no  objection  to  the  Resolution  being  in  blank  ;  it  is  per- 
haps as  well  to  first  enact  the  Resolution,  and  then,  by  nomination,  fill 
it  up.  But,  to  my  mind,  there  is  but  one  course  p'-oper  for  us  to  pur- 
sue, in  adding  the  names  to  fill  it  up.  In  my  view,  it  would  he  an 
impeachment,  to  appoint  a  neiv  Committee — I  mean  a  Committee 
made  up  of  different  members  than  those  who  composed  the  former 
Committee  of  Investigation.  I  think,  looking  upon  it  as  I  do,  I  think 
that  we  owe  it  as  a  matter  of  justice  to  those  gentlemen.  They  faith- 
fully discharged  their  duty  when  the  first  charges  were  referred  to  them 
to  investigate,  and  the  whole  business  ought  to  be  completed  by  them. 

It  is  said  that  several  of  the  members  of  this  Committee  are  credit- 
ors of  the  Bishop,  and  therefore  interested  in  having  hicn  sustained. 
Now,  it  occurs  to  me,  that  this  objection  belongs  to  the  opposite  side. 
For  creditors,  usually,  when  they  consider  that  iheir  debts  are  hope- 
less, sympathise  vi'ith  fellow-creditors. 

It  is  also  said  that  some  of  those  gentlemen  are  Trustees  of  the 
College,  and  that  one  of  them  has  children  in  the  College.  But  I 
cannot  see  that  this  should  make  us  doubtful  as  to  their  moral  integ- 
rity, or  make  us  hesitate  in  entrusting  this  business  to  their  hands. 
Looking,  therefore,  at  the  matter,  in  the  view  I  take  of  it,  there  is 
nothing  existing  in  the  relations  of  the  members  of  this  Committee  to 
the  Bishop,  which  renders  it  necessary  that  a  new  Committee  should 
be  chosen. 

The  Bishop — It  is  not  generally  known,  that  the  lay  delegate  from 
Trenton  is  a  Trustee  of  Burlington  College.  It  may  be  proper,  how- 
ever, to  add,  that,  although  he  was  appointed  one  of  the  Board  of 
Trustees,  he  has,  I  believe,  attended  none  of  their  meetings. 

Mk.  Halsted — The  Bishop  has  made  an  attack  on  me.  I  am  a 
Trustee  of  Burlington  College — not  put  there,  though,  by  my  solicit- 
ation. I  did  attend  one  meeting;  but  I  found  that  my  attending 
there  could  be  of  no  avail.  !  found  that,  there,  as  here,  I  was  in  the 
minority,  and  presumed  I  always  should  be  in  the  minority;  and 
therefore  I  stayed  away — not  wishing  to  take  any  kind  of  responsi- 
bility in  its  affairs.  I  disapproved  of  the  policy  and  course  which 
was  adopted  and  pursued,  running  in  debt  as  the  Trustees  did — or  as 
the  Bishop  did,  which  is  all  the  same  ;  for,  the  Bishop,  I  may  say, 
was  both  head  and  body  ;  and  what  he  determined  for  them,  they  did  ; 
and  after  a  while,  they  left  the  whole  of  the  management  to  him  en- 
tirely. That  is  why  I  have  not  co-operated  with  the  Trustees,  and 
why  I  cannot. 

Judge  Ogden — Then  why  don't  you  resign  ? 

Mk.  Halsted — I  have  had  hints  to  that  effect  from  the  same  quar 
ter  before.  They  have  urged  me  to  resign.  But  I  don't  intend  to; 
for  there  may  be  a  time — the  time  may  come,  when  my  presence  and 
Yote  may  be  of  use  as  a  Trustee ;  and  when  it  is,  I  shall  be  there. 

Mr.  Ryall-— I  should  have,  Mr.  President,  no  objection  to  serve  on 


31 

the  Committee;  bat  I  submit  to  the  consideration  of  this  Convention, 
whether  it  would  not  be  better,  under  the  circumstances,  to  have  an- 
other lay-Committee,  of  equal  number;  for  this  appears  to  be  a  new 
complaint.  The  old  Committee,  Sir,  were  placed  in  the  Committee, 
not  by  their  own  choice;  no  man  upon  that  Committee  sought  the 
place.  We  saw,  in  the  first  place,  that  it  was  a  season  of  the  year 
in  which  we  must  make  man}'  personal  sacrifices.  I  speak  in  refer- 
ence to  myself.  Sir;  I  had  intended  to  make  a  visit  to  my  brother, 
whom  I  had  not  seen  for  fourteen  years.  But  I  do  think,  Sir,  that  in- 
asmuch as  this  is  a  new  charge,  it  is  better  to  have  a  new  Committee 
appointed. 

I  know  very  well  the  feelings  which.  Sir,  the  Committee  entertain, 
in  preferring  to  be  relieved.  It  does  not  stand  upon  the  opinion  of 
those  three  Bishops.     God  forbid  that  it  should  ! 

Why,  Sir,  is  it  a  sin,  with  these  three  Bishops,  for  a  man  to  be  a 
Trustee  of  the  College?  But,  Sir,  it  is  not  at  all  improbable,  3'ou 
may  select  others,  Sir,  that  are  not  thus  liable  to  objection.  I  think  it 
would  he  better,  and  I  wish  it  to  be  so.  I  know  it  to  be  the  wish  of 
my  colleagues.  We  have  taken  the  responsibility  upon  ourselves  ; 
we  have  placed  the  result  of  it  before  the  Convention  ;  no  voice  has 
been  raised  against  it  here,  and  we  stand  upon  it  and  upon  our  own 
integrity  ;  not  upon  the  opinii)ns  of  those  Bishops. 

Rbv.  Mu.  Southard — I  was  about  to  mnke  a  few  remarks  upon 
the  subject  of  the  appointment  of  the  same  gentlemen  who  composed 
that  Committee  before.  I  would  not  say  a  single  word,  unless  I  felt 
that,  by  this  means,  we  should  not  only  hazard,  but  lose  forever,  much 
of  the  victory  which  we  have  won. 

It  is  said  by  the  honorable  gentleman  who  has  just  resumed  his 
seat,  and  who  argues  with  much  feeling,  that  it  is  a  new  presentment, 
abstractly  considered,  which  they  will  be  appointed  to  investigate.  I 
utterly  dissent;  and  I  think  I  might  with  safety  appeal  to  those  who 
were  instrumental  in  procuring  the  presentment. 

There  are  four  different  charges  appended  to  the  first  presentment; 
but  those  charges  were  added,  as  it  was  confessed  by  the  Bishops  on 
the  trial,  partly  to  make  up  the  case.  There  was  the  confession,  that 
after  the  time  of  the  first  appointment  had  passed,  the  presentment 
would  not  be  canonical  and  legal.  Accordingly,  it  was  done  over 
again,  with  these  \'e\\  additions,  and  some  slight  verbal  alterations.  It 
is  not,  therefore,  a  new  presentment.  And,  furthermore,  it  is  conceded 
and  confessed,  that  every  charge  added  to  that  old  presentment,  was 
known  before  that  presentment  was  made.  I  submit,  therefore,  that 
it  is  one  case  not  two:  One  case  of  charge  of  criminality.  Yes;  I 
again  repeat — It  is  one  case.  Twenty  seven  charges,  I  believe,  have 
been  investigated  now;  four  others  have  been  added.  Shall  the  Corn- 
mittee,  then,  who  have  had  the  labor,  as  we  grant,  and  I  may  sav,  who 
have  had  the  honor  to  investigate  those  charges,  shall  the}'  be  dismissed, 
and  the  paltry  amount  of  those  charges,  got  up  for  effect,  for  a  purpose, 
forming  so  small  a  fraction  of  the  paper,  be  commitied  to  seven  other 
men  to  investigate?  Are  the}'  incompetent?  Are  they  unwilling  to 
complete  the  investigation  that  is  proposed  ? 

But  one  word  (nore.  I  said  that  I  felt  that  by  setting  aside  the 
members  of  the  former  Conmiittee,  we  should  lose   much  of  the  vie- 


32 

tory  which  we  had  won.  I  feel  that  there  might  have  been  an  object 
in  the  aspersions  which  were  cast  upon  the  character  of  those  who 
constituted  the  Committee.  I  feel  that,  whether  you  grant,  directly 
or  indirectly,  that  the  members  of  the  Committee  are  incompetent  to 
examine  these  charges,  you  destroy  the  confidence  of  men  in  the  Report 
which  they  have  already  made.  You  take  away  their  sincerity  when  they 
said  that  they  were  satisfied.  You  practically  allow  that  they  were 
unworthy,  or  at  least  incompetent ;  that  you  had  better  appoint  better 
men.  There  are  no  better  men.  The  majority  of  the  Court  of 
Bishops  have  decided  that  their  investigation  was  impartial  and  com- 
plete, so  far  as  the  ends  of  justice  could  require.  Shall  we  let,  then, 
the  opposition,  who  scruple  not  to  cast  aspersions  upon  individual 
character,  shall  we  let  the  opposition  triumph,  in  compelling  us  to 
substitute  on  that  Committee  other  men  in  the  place  of  those  who 
have  been  tried  ?  [A  few  words  not  heard^  And  I  appeal,  now, 
whether  or  not  the  interest  of  all  concerned — whether  that  high, 
straight-forward,  manly  course,  which  has  been  pursued  throughout 
this  investigation,  is  not  to  be  affected  by  their  retiring  from  this  Com- 
mittee ?  I  ask,  if  they  have  already  won  your  confidence,  whether 
that  confidence  should  not  require  that  you  appoint  them  to  finish  the 
investigation  ?  I  would  urge  you  to  be  consistent  in  this  matter,  and 
maintain  your  ground,  by  appointing  the  same  Committee.  Stand  to 
it,  then,  like  men  assailed.  8tand  to  it,  with  that  confidence  which 
you  express.  The  Church  c;ills  for  it.  I  ask  for  it,  individually,  as  a 
member  of  this  Diocese,  assailed  and  torn,  as  far  as  it  can  be,  by  dis. 
sentions.  I  ask  it,  for  that  Right  Reverend  Father.  I  ask  it,  for  the 
Church. 

Mk.  Walter  Ruthekfukd — Mr.  Presif^ent :  As  I  understand,  from 
the  Report  we  had  from  the  Committee  this  morning,  and  also  from 
representations  which  j^ou  made  to  us  this  morning,  that  it  was  your 
wish,  to  be  tried  by  the  Court  ot  Bishops,  and  that  in  urging  the  me- 
morial of  the  Committee  that  the  Court  should  not  proceed,  you  were 
not  arguing  for  yourself,  but  only  for  the  rights  of  the  Diocese;  and 
as  I  understand  that  the  posiiion  taken  by  the  Committee  who  repre- 
sented the  Convention  of  New  Jersey  before  the  Bishops,  was  a  bar 
against  their  proceeding  with  the  trial,  and  stood  between  the  Bishop 
and  the  Court;  I  therefore  offer,  as  a  substitute  for  what  has  been 
moved,  the  following  Preamble  and  Resolution  : 

Whereas,  It  appears  by  tiie  Report  of  a  Committee  appointed  hy 
this  Convention,  to  investigate  certain  charges  against  the  Right  Rev. 
George  W.  Doane,  Bishop  of  this  Diocese,  that  only  a  portion  of  the 
witnesses  were  examined  before  them,  and  scarcely  any  on  whose 
evidence  the  presentment  rested  :     And, 

Whereas,  The  Right  Rev.  Bishops  of  Ohio,  Virginia  and  Maine, 
possessing  this  Report  of  the  Committee,  and  the  evidence  taken  by 
themselves,  have  published  a  document  under  their  official  signatures, 
publicly  proclaiming  their  belief  that  the  Right  Rev.  George  W. 
Doane,  Bishop  of  this  Diocese,  is  guilty  of  certain  grave  and  serious 
ofllences,  impugning  his  moral  character,  and  tending  to  impair  his 
usefulness,  and  declaring  that  they  stand  full-handed  with  the  proof 
of  the  charges  in  such  presentment; 

Resolved,  That  the  Right  Rev.  Gdorge  W.  Doane,  Bishop  of  this 


33 

Diocese,  be  earnestly  solicited  to  demand  from  his  Peers  a  trial  of 
these  charges,  in  order  that  public  opinion  may  be  satisfied,  and  his 
.  character  sustained  in  the  Church. 

The  Bishop — I  have  been  consecrated  a  Bishop  of  the  Church  of 
God,  and  am  not  to  be  instructed  by  laymen.  I  cannot  believe — (it 
would  belie  the  honored  name  he  wears) — I  will  not  believe,  that  the 
mover  of  this  Resolution  intends  it  as  a  personal  insult.  [There  were 
some  further  remarhs  here  ;  hut  the  utterance  of  the  speaker  became 
so  hurried,  that  the  Reporter  was  unable  to  follow.'] 

Rev.  David  Brown  here  read  a  speech  of  considerable  length, 
which  is  not  reported,  as  reliance  was  placed  upon  the  manuscript 
being  furnished,  which  has  failed. 

Mr  Rutherfurd — As  I  understood  from  the  Report  read  by  the 
Committee  who  went  before  the  Court  of  Bishops,  they  took  that 
course  for  the  independence  of  the  Diocese,  and  to  protect  their  rights  ; 
and  that  apart  from  the  action  of  the  Convention,  which  stood  as  a 
bar  between  the  Bishop  and  the  Court  of  Bishops,  you  were  not  only 
willing,  but  desirous,  to  have  a  trial.  The  position  taken  by  the  Con- 
vention, it  seems,  and  the  course  pursued  by  the  Committee,  was  all 
that  prevented  the  trial  from  proceeding.  Well :  my  Resolution  goes 
merely  to  remove  this,  that  the  Bishop  may  be  left  free  to  act  for  him- 
self, according  to  the  dictates  of  his  own  judgment,  as  he  has  expressed 
it. 

The  Bishop — The  Committee  made  some  remark  about  the  Bishop 
desiring  a  trial.  I  went  ro  the  Court  of  Bishops,  to  be  tried.  I  was 
not  tried;  nor  even  called  upon  to  plead  "guiltv,"  or  "not  guilty." 
The  Bishops,  for  sufficient  reasons,  laid  before  them  by  the  Committee 
of  this  Convention,  decided  that  they  would  proceed  no  further — that 
there  should  be  no  trial — that  they  would  not  entertain  the  charges — 
though  the  Presenters  urged  it. 

Now  this  gentleman  from  Jersey  City  puts  together  these  two  or 
three  things  as  the  basis  of  a  Resolution,  which  he  moves,  That  this 
Convention  urge  me  to  demand  a  trial,  to  satisfy  -public  opinion,  and 
sustain  my  character!  I  put  such  a  Resolution!  Never — never — 
never!  Did  anj'body  ever  hear  of  a  layman  calling  upon  a  Bishop  to 
put  a  proposition  like  that?  So  far  as  it  concerns  me,  that  the  Con- 
vention call  upon  me  to  request  to  be  tried,  I  shall  do  no  such  thing. 
It's  too  absurd  to  talk  about.  When  I  am  arraigned,  and  the  question 
of  "  Guilty  or  Not  Guilty  ?"  is  asked,  I  will  answer  it.  I  will  not 
go  through  the  absurdity  of  proposing  such  a  Resolution  here.  [A 
few  other  remarks,  which  the  Reporter  could  not  follow.] 

I  speak  with  perfect  respect,  with  perfect  kindness ;  but  I  must 
speak  freely.  I  cannot  permit  such  interference  with  my  ri<j-hts — 
with  what  belongs  to  my  office  as  a  Bishop.  I  have  that  sense  of  re- 
sponsibility— that  which  no  other  man  in  this  house  has.  I  presume 
the  gentleman  will  not  urge  his  Resolution.  I  may  assure  the  gentle- 
man, I  wish  he  had  asked  me  in  private  if  he  thought  there  was  occa- 
sion for  such  a  singular  request.  But  it  has  been  brought  out  here  in 
guch  a  way  that  I  must  express  some  very  small  part  of  my  feelings. 

A  Bishop  has  obligations  which  no  man  of  his  Diocese  can  under- 
stand or  enter  into.     His  position  is  altogether  separate  and  peculiar. 


34 

He  stands  by  himself.     He  is  a  king.     There  are  points  in  which  no 
counsel  can  be  permitted  to  come  in. 

Mr.  Ruthkrfurd — I  would  beg  leave  to  say,  as  there  has  been  no 
imputation  against  me  of  hostile  or  unworthy  motives,  I  would  merely 
say  that  I  understood  the  position  of  the  case  to  be  this :  That  the 
Committee  placed  great  stress  upon  the  rights  of  the  Diocese — that 
the  coui-se  taken  by  them  in  regard  to  the  trial,  which  resulted  in  de- 
feating it,  was  independent  of  yourself — and  that  all  that  stood  in  the 
way  and  prevented  the  trial,  was  the  action  of  this  Convention.  I 
also  understood  that  you,  on  behalf  of  the  Committee,  as  representing 
the  Diocese  and  its  rights,  that  you  considered,  in  the  appeal  that  you 
there  made,  that  you  stood  independent  of  yourself,  and  w  re  acting  for 
them — that  by  these  means,  or  by  action  of  theirs,  the  Committee  of 
this  Convention  had  interfered  with  your  free  action,  in  regard  to  hav- 
ing a  trial  upon  the  charges  niade  against  you. 

Hon.  James  Parker — I  ought  to  begin  perhaps,  with  an  apology 
to  the  Convention,  for  troubling  them  at  this  time,  after  so  much  time 
has  been  spent  in  the  discussion  of  small  matters  before  them. 

You  will  recollect  that  when  this  Report  was  brought  in,  I  suggested 
the  propriety  of  striking  out  that  part  of  it  which  was  composed  of  the 
arguments  made  use  of  by  the  Committee  before  the  House  of  Bish- 
ops, anxiously  requesting  them  not  to  try  the  cause  submitted  to  them 
by  the  three  Bishops.  If  my  sugges  ion  had  been  followed,  we  would 
have  avoided  an  irritating  deb.ite.  I  am  glad  only  on  one  account, 
that  my  suggestion  did  not  take  place;  because  if  it  had,  I  and  this 
Convention  would  have  been  prevented  from  hearing  the  plain,  forci- 
ble argument  of  the  gentleman  from  Christ  Church,  in  Newark,  in 
which  the  question  is  placed  in  so  complete  and  forciljle  a  light,  that  all 
must  see  that  the  only  proper  way  to  put  an  end  to  this  troublesome 
affiiir,  was  to  have  the  trial  go  on  before  the  Court  of  Bishops.  In 
any  observations  that  1  may  make,  I  wish  to  preface  them  l»y  the  dec- 
laration that  1  do  not  undertake  to  say  that  the  charges  made  by  the 
three  Bishops  are  true,  nor  if  they  were  true  do  I  undertake  to  say 
what  is  the  degree  of  moral  or  legal  guilt  that  would  follow  from  the 
proof  ol  the  facts. 

The  Bishop  is  charged  with  these  offenses ;  they  may  be  true  or 
untrue ;  but,  feir,  I  do  say  that  the  public  mind  is  imbued  with  the 
idea  that  the  Bishop  of  this  Diocese  is  charged  with  facts  that  destroy 
his  character  as  a  Bishop  before  the  community,  and  there  can  be  no 
cure  for  that  but  a  trial. 

What  is  the  investigation  of  this  Committee?  Whoever  these  gen- 
tlemen are  they  are  the  personal  friends  of  the  Bishop;  they  have 
formed  and  expressed  opinions  upon  the  subject,  and  could  they  con- 
vict the  Bishop?  No;  nor  could  they  sutficiently  clear  him;  they 
constituted  a  Court  by  themselves,  it  was  a  selt-constituted  Court; 
and  when  the  witnesses  were  summoned,  the  most  important  of  them 
said  that  it  was  not  a  proper  Court,  and  they  would  not  go ;  and  in 
the  face  of  that  absent  testimony  the  Committee  have  reported  that 
the  Bishop  was  not  guilty.  Now,  Sir,  if  1  had  been  an  enemy  to  the 
Bishop — which  I  am  not,  and  I  trust  the  Bishop  knows  it—  if  I  had 
been  an  enemy  to  the  Church  1  should  wish  the  thing  to  take  the 
very  course  it  has  taken.     Eight  of  the  Bishops  have  acceded  to  our 


35  ' 

request,  and  said  they  would  not  try  the  Bishop.  As  a  humble  individ- 
ual, a  layman,  I  say  it — I  say  that  th  Church  is  suffering  every  day; 
and  that  the  further  we  progress,  and  the  more  we  continue  to  act, 
the  more  will  the  Church  suffer.  It  has  been  remarked  by  the  hin- 
orable  President,  that  it  would  be  a  very  strange  thing  that  a  maa 
charged  with  crime  was  solicited  to  demand  a  trial. 

Well,  now,  I  believe  that  in  the  army  or  navy,  the  least  impeach- 
ment is  followed  by  a  request  to  be  tried.  I  think  I  have  known  some 
Bishops  who  have  requested  to  be  tried,  and  why  should  any  one 
shrink  from  it?     [A  few  words  not  heard.'\ 

Well,  iSir,  if  the  rule  here  is  to  be  sic  volo,  sic  juheo,  if  the  Bishop 
is  to  rule  the  Convention  in  this  absolute  fashion,  we  had  better  put 
on  our  hats  and  go  home.  I  do  not  tliink  it  is  an  indelicate  question 
or  an  improper  one.  I  understand  that  the  Bishop  of  this  Diocese, 
when  we  ask  him  to  put  a  question,  says  he  will  not  be  dictated  to. 
Now,  if  that  is  to  be  the  rule,  I  am  not  disposed  to  waste  time  in  dis- 
cussing propositions  until  I  know  that  the  President  will  put  them. 

Hon.  J.  W.  Miller. — Mr.  President,  I  did  not  intend.  Sir,  to  take 
any  part  in  the  debate  to-niglit;  but  these  questions  have  assumed 
such  a  shape,  that  1  can  no  longer  be  quiet  in  respect  to  niyself,  or 
with  regard  to  what  I  consider  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  Clergy, 
Laity,  and  Bishop 

In  July  last,  Sir,  when  I  was  absent,  I  was  appointed  one  of  a 
Committee,  consisting  of  three  clergy  and  two  laymen,  to  do  what, 
Sir?  To  perform  a  <luty  imposed  upon  us  by  tliis  Diocese,  instruct- 
ing us  to  carry  this  Resolution  to  a  Court  of  Bishops  which  should  be 
assembled  under  the  Canon  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  and  in  a  respect- 
ful manner  say  to  them,  that  the  charges  which  they  were  about  to 
try,  had  been  investigated  by  this  Convention  with  relerence  to  the 
presentment;  and  upon  that  investigation,  fully  made  by  a  General 
Committee  and  reported  to  a  (-onvention,  sanctioned  by  this  Conven- 
tion ;  upon  that  investigation  they  found  no  cause  of  presentment  of 
the  Bishop  of  N.  J  upon  these  charges,  i  on  did  not  stop  there,  Sir, 
and  my  honorable  friend  from  Amboy  was,  I  think,  a  member  of  that 
Convention. 

Hon.  James  Parker — I  was  not. 

Mr.  Miller — Were  you  not  appointed  ? 

Mr.  Parker — Yes,  sir,  but  I  did  not  attend  it 

Mr.  Miller — The  proceedings  of  that  session  were  the  action  of 
Convention,  the  same  as  though  every  member  chosen  had  been  pres- 
ent. I  mean  to  say  this:  this  is  a  legal  Convention  in  the  Church" 
and  our  order  and  proceedings  here,  bind  every  true  njember  of  the 
Church  ;  and  those  who  are  not  present  are  equally  bound  by  it,  and 
they  have  no  right  to  find  fault  with  it. 

Mr.  Parkkr — We  1,  I  do  find  fault  with  it,  and  I  claim  the  right  to. 

Mr.  Miller — Now,  look  at  the  con.-equences  which  have  flowed 
from  that  resolution.  There  are  deep,  responsible  transactions,  affect- 
ing time  and  eternity,  which  never  can  be  taken  back.  But,  Sir,  I 
was  appointed  as  a  member  of  a  Committee  to  perlorm  a  solemn 
duty.  i\ow,  if  I  understand  the  honorable  gentleman,  he  says  that 
the  manner  in  which  we  performed  that  duty  does  not  meet  his  appro- 
bation     The  Committee  presented  it  to  the  Court  of  Bishops.    Alo  ig 


36 

with  it,  what  did  we  do  ?  We  presented  an  ar£[ument  in  writing  show- 
ing reasons  why  the  Bishop  ought  not  to  be  tried  by  the  Court.  Now, 
we  may  not  have  performed  that  duty  according  to  the  opinions  or 
tastes  of  gentlemen  here.  But  this  Committee  was  thrown  upon 
their  own  responsibihty.  This  Committee  were  to  act  as  they  thought 
proper.  Was  it  my  duty  to  consult  the  honorable  gentlemen  from 
Trenton  or  Amboy  ? 

We  were  next  earnestly  to  request  the  Court  of  Bishops  not  to 
proceed  any  further  with  those  charges,  because  they  had  been  inves- 
tigated, and  been  declared  not  true,  by  this  Convention.  What  was 
the  result  ?  They  considered  the  action  of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jer- 
sey;  they  examined  the  evidence  with  reference  to  those  charges,  and 
decided  by  a  solemn  vote,  that  that  investigation  was  an  honest  one, 
and  the  charges  without  foundation.  They  decided  that.  Whose 
fault  was  it  that  all  the  witnesses  were  not  examined? 

Mk.  Gifford — Will  the  gentleman  let  me  ask  him  what  the  ques- 
tion is  ? 

Mr.  Miller — I  do  not  know.  Sir.  [Laughter,']  I  am  answering, 
now,  some  ohjections  thrown  out  here.  I  wish  to  state  simply  to  this 
Convention,  that  we  have  done  nothing  more  than  carry  out  the  order 
of  this  Convention.  We  presented  to  the  Court  of  Bishops  this  evi- 
dence, the  manner  in  which  it  was  taken,  and  we  asked  them,  in  a 
solemn  and  earnest  manner,  not  to  proceed  any  further  with  regard  to 
these  charges.  And  now,  when  we  come  back  to  this  same  Conven- 
tion which  instructed  us  to  do  this,  and  accomplish  this  very  result, 
we  say,  we  did  what  you  told  us  to  do,  and  it  was  effectual.  And 
now  gentlemen  find  fault  with  us  for  our  taking  it  up  to  the  highest 
Court  in  the  country.  Now,  I  come  to  the  point.  It  is  said  here, 
that  that  opinion  of  the  Bishops  and  of  the  action  of  this  Diocese 
ought  not  to  stand,  because  that  investigation,  made  by  the  Commit- 
tee of  Investigation,  was  not  a  fciir,  thorough  and  an  honest  one. 
That  is  the  question  raised  here  to-night.  That  is  the  question  raised 
by  the  gentleman  from  Trenton — precisely  the  question  raised  by  the 
three  Bishops — the  integrity  of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  and  the 
fairness  of  that  Committee.  Sir,  I  thought  it  was  an  unworthy  pro- 
ceeding, on  the  part  of  those  Bishops,  their  endeavor  to  cast  reproach 
on  this  Committee.  But  they  had  no  feeling  in  common  with  us  ; 
they  were  strangers,  out-siders,  and  seized  upon  this  plea  because 
they  thought  it  might  serve  their  purpose.  They  were  not  working 
for  right ;  but  as  lawyers  for  their  cause.  They  did  all  they  could  to 
destroy  the  force  of  what  the  Committee  had  said  to  the  Court ;  and 
after  a  full  argument,  (we  not  being  heard  in  reply,)  the  House  of 
Bishops,  assembled  in  Burlington,  solemnly  decided,  under  the  great 
responsibility  of  their  official  oaths,  that  the  investigation  b}'  the  Com- 
mittee was  satisfactory  to  the  Church.  And  w^hen  we  come  back 
here  and  tell  you  that  the  Court  of  Bishops  thus  decided,  gentlemen 
here  say  that  notwithstanding  this  decision,  we  want  another  investi- 
gation— we  want  still  a  trial.  And  the  honorable  gentleman  presents 
a  resolution  at  this  stage  of  the  proceedings,  in  which  he  asks  the 
Bishop  to  put  the  question  to  this  Diocese,  requesting  him  to  demand  a 
trial  When,  where,  and  how  ?  I  ask  the  gentleman.  How  can  he 
get  a  trial?     In  a  civil  court?     This  Convention  ask  the  Bishop  to 


37 

demand  a  trial  ?  When,  and  where ;  upon  what  charges  ?  whose 
charges  ?  If  any  Christian  man  in  this  assembly  thinks  that  Bishop 
Doane  is  guilty  of  crime  or  immorality,  let  him  present  him  for  trial. 
Let  him  take  the  Canon  of  the  Church.  He  there  finds  that  a  Bishop 
may  be  presented  for  trial.  Is  there  any  other  mode  pointed  out  in 
the  Church,  in  which  he  can  have  a  trial?  None  other.  And  here  I 
wish  to  call  the  attention  of  this  Convention  to  what  I  have  heard  and 
hear  again.  The  gentleman  knows  very  well  that  all  the  proceedings 
of  the  Diocese  in  regard  to  this  matter,  have  been  upon  the  question 
of  presentment.  The  Canon  declares  that  a  Bishop  may  be  pre- 
sented by  the  Convention,  or  by  three  Bishops  ;  and  we  cannot  pro- 
cure a  trial  of  a  Bishop  unless  it  is  by  a  presentment,  either  through  a 
Diocese  or  by  three  Bishops. 

Now,  the  only  question  pending  is  filling  up  the  blank  with  the 
names  of  the  new  Committee.  When  we  look  at  the  history  of  this 
matter,  I  think  the  Convention  will  see,  first,  that  there  is  a  great  prin- 
ciple  involved  in  this  matter,  and  that  it  is  highly  probable  that  the  same 
gentlemen  composing  the  first  Committee  should  be  put  in  charge  of  this 
work,  because  they  made  a  faithful  investigation  of  this  case  before. 

Secondly,  the  highest  tribunal  of  the  Church  have  examined  that 
investigation  and  declared  it  to  be  satisfactory.  The  Presenting 
Bishops  undertook  to  impeach  the  candor  of  that  Committee,  and  as- 
signed their  reasons  for  believing  that  they  acted  with  partiality,  and 
their  Report  was  not  entitled  to  credit.  There  is  not  a  man  in  this 
Convention  who  does  not  know  the  contrary,  and  the  House  of  Bish- 
ops have  so  decided.  And  yet,  it  has  been  published  to  the  world  that 
this  Committee  was  not  a  fair  Committee,  because  some  of  them  had 
their  sons  at  the  College,  and  some  of  them  had  let  you  have  their 
money  to  build  up  the  College.  Sir,  if  they  had  read  your  heart  as  we 
have,  they  might  easily  have  found  that  in  all  those  holy  ties  which 
bind  People,  Clergy  and  Bishop  together — they  might  have  found  that 
in  twenty  years  faithful  performance  of  duties,  our  confidence  in  you 
is  not  so  easily  destroyed.  [SomelJiing  not  heard.]  Shall  I  admit 
that  because  my  two  sons  are  entrusted  to  your  care  for  education,  I 
am  not  able  to  judge  whether  you  have  committed  perjury  ?  No,  Sir. 
And  now  I  say  that  without  this  impeachment  of  the  gentlemen  upon 
that  Committee,  and  this  Convention  having  solemnly  decided  upon 
two  separate  occasions  that  they  were  competent,  I  say  that  it  is  our 
duty,  in  investigating  the  other  charges  according  to  the  directions  of 
the  Court  of  Bishops  to  which  this  whole  matter  was  referred — it  is 
our  duty,  I  say,  to  appoint  the  same  Committee. 

Hon.  R.  p.  TiioMrsoK — Having  made  a  motion  to  strike  out  the 
names  of  the  Committee,  it  is  due  to  myself  to  say  that  I  made  this 
motion  not  from  any  want  of  confidence  in  the  gentlemen  named,  but 
merely  because  it  was  asked  of  me  by  one  of  them,  who  himself  de- 
sired to  be  excused  from  serving  again,  because  other  persons,  it  was 
believed,  would  be  better.  But  I  am  satisfied  that  if  consequences 
are  to  flow  from  it  which  my  friends  have  predicted,  and  the  Conven- 
tion is  to  be  influenced  by  what  they  have  said,  I  ask  leave  to  with- 
draw the  motion. 

The  Bishop — It  now  stands  moved  and  seconded  that  the  blank  be 
filled  with  the  names  of  the  former  Committee. 


38 

Mr.  Halsted — T  understand  the  Resolution  now  to  be  in  the  shape 
in  which  it  was  originally  offered.  It  includes,  therefore,  two  ques- 
tions; one  is  to  appoint  a  Committee,  and  the  other  is  to  include  all 
the  persons  of  the  old  Committee  in  the  appointment.  Now  I  wish 
to  inform  the  Convention  that  one  of  the  members,  Mr.  VVakefield, 
has  removed  out  of  the  State.  [Here  something  was  snid,  in  sub- 
staU'  e,  that  it  was  not  material,  as  a  clause  in  the  Resolution  provides 
for  filling  vacancies.'\  Mr.  Halsted  resumed  :  Premising,  Sir,  that  I 
have  personally  a  great  respect  for  the  gentlemen  composing  the 
Committee,  I  doubt,  however,  the  expediency  of  the  whole  motion, 
and  am  opposed  to  it  in  tolo. 

It  appears  to  me,  that  if  I  was  called  upon  to  decide  what  would  be 
best  for  the  peace  of  the  Church,  (1  presume  that  we  are  all  in  favor 
of  the  peace  of  the  Church,)  as  a  conscientious  man,  I  should  say, 
if  a  Committee  is  to  be  raised,  appoint  a  Committee  who  have  ex- 
pressed no  opinion  upon  this  subject;  who  have  not  become  warm  by 
any  active  participation  in  the  matter  ;  who  have  not,  by  the  very  fact 
that  they  have  drawn  out  a  report  of  the  Bishop's  innocence,  become 
wedded  to  that  opinion.  We  all  know  how  very  partial  we  are  to 
our  own  opinions.  It  appears  to  me,  therefore,  that  if  the  object  the 
Convention  have  in  view  is  to  give  satisfaction  to  the  public,  they 
ought  to  appoint  a  Committee  who  have  not  expressed  an  opinion  on 
the  subject  at  all. 

The  first  gentleman  Vv'ho  spoke,  from  the  House  of  Prayer,  gave  as 
a  reason  why  those  gentlemen  should  be  re-appointed,  that  the  victory 
already  achieved  would  be  carried  out.  Now  it  really  appears  to  me 
that  that  is  the  strongest  reason  why  they  should  not  be  appointed. 
[A  sentence  not  heard.  ] 

Rev.  Mr.  Southard — The  victory  I  had  reference  to  was  a  tri- 
umph of  the  truth. 

Mr.  Halsted — It  may  be  what  you  consider  a  victory  of  the  truth, 
but  different  persons  think  differentl}^  as  to  what  is  the  truth. 

Now,  to  my  mind,  the  very  argument  of  the  gentleman  that  it  is  to 
carry  out  Xheir  victoi'y  that  the  Committee  are  to  do  so,  shows  a  state 
of  feeling  not  consistent  with  a  calm  and  simple  endeavor  to  elicit 
truth. 

Mr.  Southard — I  said  that  if  the  same  Committee  were  not  ap- 
pointed, I  thought  we  should  lose  much  of  that  victory  which  had 
already  been  won — that  victory  of  truth  ;  and  I  meant  that  we  should 
lose  it  in  this  way:  that  by  removing  those  gentlemen,  we  should  re- 
flect upon  the  fairness  and  the  fullness  of  the  investigation  those  gentle- 
men had  made,  so  that  you  would  deprive  us  of  that  victory  which  we 
won  in  the  Court,  vi'hen  the  Bishops  said,  your  investigation  is  satis- 
factory to  us. 

Mr.  Halsted — The  gentleman  assumes  here  that  the  three  Bish- 
ops have  impeached  the  character  of  that  Committee,  which  is  not  the 
case ;  on  the  contrary,  they  expressly  accorded  to  them  all  the  high 
character  which  the  Convention  of  this  Diocese  claim  for  them  ;  and 
therefore,  when  the  gentleman  assumes  that  the  character  of  those 
gentlemen  has  been  impeached,  he  goes  beyond  the  mark.  Now,  I 
do  say,  and  I  submit  it  to  every  person ;  I  ask,  would  the  report  of  a 
Committee,  constituted  as  that  Committee  was,  have  the  same  effect 


39 

upon  the  public  mind  as  the  report  of  gentlemen  totally  unconnected 
with  the  Bishop,  his  College,  or  his  debts  i  Would  it  have  ?  I  submit, 
without  the  least  imoutation  against  the  honor  of  those  gentlemen, 
that  it  could  not.  I  say,  then,  that  it  is  due  to  the  Bishop,  and  due  to 
the  Church,  that  we  should  have  a  Committee  who  have  not  expressed 
an  opinion  upon  this  subject ;  and  therefore  I  say  it  is  for  the  good  of 
the  Church.  If  they  want  a  Committee  to  make  an  investigation,  let 
it  be  made  by  men  who  have  not  committed  themselves  by  any  pre- 
conceived opinion  upon  the  subject. 

Now,  Sir,  as  to  the  second  resolution.  That  resolution  is  that  this 
Committee  shall  have  power  to  appoint  or  to  fill  vacancies.  I  would 
ask,  in  what  capacity  is  this  Committee  of  Inquirj'  to  act  ?  Is  it  to  act 
in  a  judicial  or  ministerial  capacity?  Is  it  to  exercise  any  judgment 
whether  those  charges  which  have  been  presented  have  been  proved 
or  not  ?  Am  I  to  understand  that  the  Committee  of  Inquiry  are  to 
act  judicially?     [TAe  Reporter  missed  a  few  words.'j 

It  is  to  investigate  the  charges  and  make  up  their  opinion  as  to 
their  truth,  and  to  report  to  this  Convention  their  decision.  Now,  if 
this  Committee  is  a  Judicial  Committee,  or  to  exercise  in  some  meas 
ure  judicial  powers,  to  exercise  their  judgment  upon  matters  brought 
before  them,  the  motion  to  empower  them  to  fill  vacancies  is  illegal. 
It  is  a  matter  well  understood  by  lawyers  ;  ministerial  authority  may 
be  delegated,  but  judicial  authority  cannot.  Did  ever  a  person  hear 
that  when  a  .Judge  was  chosen,  that  Judge  could  delegate  his  powers 
to  anybody  else  ?  No,  never.  Then  1  submit  that  tliis  Convention 
have  no  authority  whatever  to  empower  this  Committee  to  appoint 
any  person  to  fill  nny  vacancy.  If  this  Committee  is  to  be  a  Commit- 
tee to  act  judicially,  they  may  have  confidence  in  certain  gentlemen 
whom  they  ma}'  choose  to  nominate,  while  others  might  have  no  con- 
fidf^nce  in  persons  that  this  Committee  might  nominate.  I  know  that 
it  is  a  very  common  thing  in  our  jjolitical  moves,  where  we  appoint 
some  active  men  to  do  political  work,  to  leave  them  to  appoint  others. 
[A  sentence  lostJ] 

I  submit,  therefore,  that  this  resolution  ought  not  to  pass,  for  it  is 
wholly  illegal  and  improper.  Now,  Sir,  my  learned  friend  from  M-^r- 
ristown,  the  honorable  Senator,  has  submitted  some  views  upon  this 
subject  which  I  cannot  assent  to.  In  the  first  place,  he  laid  down  the 
position  that  every  person  belonging  to  this  Convention  was  necessa- 
rily bound  l)y  the  acts  of  the  Convention,  and  have  no  right  to  find 
fault  with  them  He  said,  suppose  that  in  the  absence  of  one  of  the 
members  of  a  Legislative  body  a  law  should  be  passed,  he  is  bound  by 
it.  Now,  I  submit  to  my  honorable  friend  that  that  principle  is  not  the 
one  in  question. 

Suppose  the  Legislature  undertook  to  pass  a  law  which  is  in  direct 
opposition  to  the  Constitution  ;  would  he  be  responsilile  for  it  I  If  40 
Bishops  declare  a  matter  constitutional,  if  I  do  not  believe  it  constitu- 
tional I  have  the  right,  as  a  man,  to  say  so.  Every  man  is  free  to 
judge  for  himself,  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  reason,  until  there 
has  been  a  judicial  decision  upon  the  "point. 

I  believe  the  day  will  como  when  a  majority  of  the  Bishops  in  this 
country  will  so  decide  it.  But,  as  it  now  remains  here,  we  have  a 
right  to  form  our  opinions  ;  we  are  at  liberty,  if  we  find  occasion,  to 


.  40 

differ.  I  only  say,  then,  to  my  friend  from  Morristown,  I  take  a  dif- 
ferent view.  We  are  not  bound.  We  have  a  perfect  right  to  express 
our  dissent,  not  only  from  the  adoption  of  the  Report  of  the  Commit- 
tee, but  from  any  action  founded  upon  that  Report.  [The  closing 
sentence  not  heard.'] 

Now,  the  reverend  gentleman  in  his  argument  undertook  to  saj 
that  the  four  charges  which  have  been  referred  to  this  Convention  by 
the  Court  of  Bishops,  were  known  to  the  three  Bishops  before  thej 
made  the  original  presentment,  or  were  known  to  the  persons  who  pre- 
ferred the  accusations.  I  do  not  know  what  authority  the  gentleman 
had  to  make  that  assertion.  I  know  that  some  of  those  matters  were 
brought  to  the  attention  of  the  three  Bishops ;  but  they  declined  to 
make  charges  upon  them,  because  they  had  not  been  able  to  see  the 
individual  witnesses,  and  were  not  willing  to  adopt  any  statement,  un- 
less they  could  find  reliable  testimony.  If  they  knew  them  all,  it  shows 
that  they  did  not  put  them  in,  because  such  evidence  could  not  be  ob- 
tained then  as  they  could  rely  upon  as  sufficient. 

The  BisHor — They  say  expressly  that  two  were  left  out  by  acci- 
dent; I  say  they  were  designedly  left  out 

Mr.  Halsted — Well,  it  only  makes  the  case  stronger  then.  If 
these  are  new  charges  they  ought  to  be  examined  by  a  new  Commit- 
tee, and  not  by  those  who  have  already  decided  that  the  Bishop  is  in- 
nocent. So  far  as  any  result  is  to  be  attained,  I  would  quite  as  lief 
have  those  gentlemen  as  any  others.  It  is  not  because  I  have  any 
personal  objection ;  nay,  the  contrary.  But  if  you  want  a  report 
which  will  have  no  weight  upon  the  public  mind,  appoint  these  very 
men,  and  rest  on  their  decision. 

I  do  not,  I  cannot  believe,  that  it  is  proper  that  gentlemen  who  stand 
in  the  relation  that  these  gentlemen  do  towards  the  Bishop,  shonid  act 
in  this  case.  But  I  have  another  remark  to  make.  Several  of  the 
gentlemen  (particularly  the  gentleman  from  Morristown,)  have  stated 
that  the  objection  to  this  report  was  that  it  was  not  a  fair  report,  made 
by  independent  men.  One  of  the  objections,  and  the  main  one,  is, 
that  it  was  not  afidl  report.  The  Resolution  or  the  Preamble  before 
the  Convention  has  undertaken  to  say  that  this  Committee  have  made 
a  full  and  honest  inquiry  into  the  allegations.  Now,  I  deny  it  ;  I  say 
that  Committee  did  not  make  a  full  investigation.  But  yet  it  has  been 
declared  and  reiterated  over  and  over  again,  that  that  Committee 
made  a  full  examination  of  all  the  charges.     [A  few  tcords  not  heard.] 

Now,  I  say,  that  this  Report  has  been  invoked  over  and  over  again 
as  a  full  inquiry.  Now,  I  refer  to  the  Report  to  show  that  this  Com- 
mittee said  that  it  was  not  a  full  examination.  On  page  26  it  says  : — 
[The  sfeaker  here  cited  some  expressions  in  the  Report  which  could 
not  be  noted.] 

Now,  I  find  fault  with  the  Convention  for  having  passed  a  Resolu- 
tion asserting  that  that  Committee  did  make  a  full  investigation.  Now 
here,  in  their  Report,  the  Committee  say  very  frankly  and  candidly, 
that  they  could  make  no  full  investigation  ;  and  yet  it  is  reiterated  on 
this  floor,  over  and  over  again,  that  they  did. 

I  want  the  truth  to  be  heard,  and  their  Report  stated  just  exactly 
as  the  Committee  stated  it.  Look  at  the  Report,  and  you  will  find 
several  instances  where  the  Committee  gave  their  reasons  why  they 


41 

could  not  make  a  full  examination.  When  we  are  told  that  we  ought 
to  be  satisfied — that  there  has  been  a  full  and  satisfectory  inquiry,  we 
reply,  Why,  gentlemen,  there  could  have  been  no  full  inquiry,  and  here 
is  the  evidence.  We  point  to  the  fact  that  there  were  38  witnesses, 
whose  names  were  furnished  to  the  Committee,  and  of  these  38,  but  5 
were  examined  ;  and  is  this  to  be  called  a  full  examination  ? 

Mr.  Ryall — I  think  we  examined  27  or  28  witnesses. 

Mr.  Halsted — But  they  were  not,  at  least  only  5  of  them,  those 
on  whom  the  presentment  depended.  They  were  witnesses  who,  as 
is  shown  by  their  testimony,  knew  nothing  about  the  matters  charged. 
They  testified  that  they  did  not  know.  Now  I  repeat  it,  that  there 
we'-e  more  than  30  important  witnesses  who  were  not  examined  ;  and 
yet  we  are  to  be  told  that  this  was  a  full  investigation. 

Mr.  Ryall — All  the  witnesses  named  by  you  were  subpenaed,  but 
I  don't  remember  now  how  many  of  them  appeared. 

Mr.  Halsted — There  were  only  5  out  of  the  \vhole  38 ;  and  the 
reason  why  the  persons  who  were  subpenaed  did  not  appear  before 
that  Committee  exists  now :  That  that  Committee  was  not  invested 
with  judicial  authority ;  and  these  witnesses  still  hold  themselves  in 
readiness,  as  they  have  at  all  times,  to  go  before  the  Court  of  Bishops 
and  give  their  testimony. 

I  say,  therefore,  if  you  want  a  really  full  investigation  of  these  char- 
ges, a  different  policy  must  be  adopted.  And  I  submit,  if  there  is  ta 
be  a  Committee  appointed,  that,  in  the  first  place,  the  whole  of  the 
Conamittee  ought  to  be  directly  appointed  by  the  Convention,  and  not 
leave  to  a  majority  of  the  Committee  to  supply  vacancies :  and  sec- 
ondly, that  the  Committee  ought  to  be  composed  of  persons  in  no  way 
connected  with  the  Bishop  or  his  institutions  :  and  in  the  third  place, 
that  that  Committee  should  be  composed  of  a  majority  o(  those  who 
are  for  the  Bishop,  and  a  minority  of  those  against  him.  By  this 
means  we  shall  be  more  likely  to  get  at  the  truth,  and  have  a  fair  in- 
vestigation of  the  charges. 

Mr.  Courtland  Parker — I  will  not  detain  the  Convention,  Mr. 
President,  long ;  for  it  seems  to  me  that  a  great  deal  has  been  said 
and  done  through  the  day  very  irrelevant  and  unnecessary.  A  large 
amount  of  time  has  been  consumed  by  reading  the  report,  and  with 
various  honest  and  earnest  opinions  on  the  part  of  the  Committee 
who  made  that  Fieport.  As  to  the  ability,  the  good  spirit  and  excel- 
lence with  which  they  have  done  their  duty — in  this  matter  they  may 
be  perfectly  right,  but,  it  seems  to  me,  that  we  have  very  little  to  do 
with  it  here  ;  and  it  seems  to  me  too,  that  in  discussing  the  conduct  of 
the  gentlemen  composing  the  investigating  Committee,  there  is  little 
profit.  For  my  own  part,  I  am  free  to  say,  that  I  have  no  charge, 
whatever,  to  bring  against  these  gentlemen  ;  that  while  there  may  be 
fears  that  the  minute  interest  they  have  in  defending  the  Bishop  would 
at  law  because  of  challenge — the  doctrine  of  the  law  being  upon  that 
point,  that  the  minutest  shade  of  interest  will  exclude  a  party  from  act- 
ing  as  judge — yet,  that,  with  such  men  as  these,  their  being  trustees,, 
patrons  and  creditors,  are  but  trifles,  lighter  than  air,  and  not  to  be  re- 
garded by  us  for  one  moment.  Thes6  gentlemen  will  do  as  well  for 
the  purposes  required  of  them  as  any  other  gentlemen.  I  have  na 
doubt  that  they   brought  to   their  task  a  spirit  of  investigation  suf- 


42 

ficient  for  all  purposes  desired  by  this  Convention,  and  I  suppose  that 
there  can  be  no  question  that  they  did  what  was  required  of  them, 
honestly,  impartially  and  fairly. 

But,  Mr.  President,  I  rise  for  the  purpose  of  placing  before  this 
Convention  a  proposition  as  an  amendment  of  those  which -are  now 
before  them.  I  understand,  that,  the  resolutions  offered  by  the  gen- 
tleman beside  me  (Mr.  Rutherfurd)  are  not  to  be  submitted.  As  to 
those  resolutions,  I  am  free  to  say  that  the  proposition  embodied  by 
them  is  one  which  had  struck  my  own  mind  previously,  and  1  had  not 
dreamed  that  it  was  in  anywise  objectionable  as  out  of  order. 

The  matter  has  been  left  with  this  Convention  by  the  express  request 
of  the  Bishop.  He  has  placed  it  before  us  by  his  first  address  at  the 
first  Convention,  and  his  second  address  here.  I  wish  to  avow  that  I 
am  in  favor  still,  and  as  much  as  ever,  of  this  matter  being  regularly 
tried.  I  speak  more  freely  upon  this  matter,  because  at  last,  after  as- 
persions from  gentlemen  who  should  have  been  the  last  to  impugn  my 
motives,  I  believe,  and  am  thankful  so  to  believe,  that  in  the  mind  of 
the  man  who  is  most  concerned  in  this  matter  I  stand  clear  of  any  in- 
sincerity, any  hostility  to  him,  and  am  thought  only  to  exercise  an 
honest  difference  of  opinion.  I  am,  at  last,  glad  to  believe  that,  with 
the  same  ideas  I  had  before,  with  the  same  conviction,  that  a  trial  was 
the  best  thing  for  the  Bishop,  the  Church  and  the  world ;  the  best 
thing  for  that  world  which  you,  Sir,  and  such  as  you,  are  desiring  to 
correct.  I  shall  not  be  charged  with  insincerity  when  I  say,  that 
while  I  believe  this,  I  believe  the  Bishop  innocent  of  the  charges,  and 
for  that  reason  I  do  most  earnestly  yet  desire  that  this  Convention, 
even  now,  should  retrace  its  steps. 

I  say.  Sir,  that  it  is,  in  my  judgment,  now  the  duty  of  this  Conven- 
tion to  retrace  their  steps,  and  to  counsel  a  resort  to  a  canonical  tiial;  and 
I  submit,  Mr.  President,  with  that  view,  this  Resolution,  as  an  amend- 
ment, or  in  lieu  of  the  one  that  has  been  placed  before  you,  believing 
that  it  will  meet  tlie  case,  and  at  the  same  time  be  more  acceptable 
than  the  one  proposed  before  by  the  gentleman  from  Jersey  City. 

Mr.  Parker  then  offered  the  following; 

Resolved,  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  Convention,  the  fair  fame  of 
the  Bishop  cannot  be  effectually  rescued  from  the  accusations  against 
it,  by  any  ex  parte  inquiry,  however  thorough,  nor  without  a  canonical 
trial 

The  Bishop — This  is  worse  than  the  other.  I'll  put  no  such  res- 
olutions. Pm  a  Bishop — Pm  Bishop  of  this  Diocese —  Ptn  Bishop  of 
this  Diocese  in  this  Convention,  and  PIl  stand  this  no  longer  I  have 
been  before  the  Court  of  Bishops.  I  took  the  course  of  that  Court; 
and — I  am  here.  But  I  will  not  put  a  resolution  like  this.  What 
child'-  play!  After  all  that  has  passed,  I  put  a  resolution  retracting 
the  whole  course  adopted ;  calling  upon  this  Convention  to  say,  that 
in  their  opinion,  my  fair  fame  needs  a  trial  ?  This,  after  this  Conven- 
tion has  resolved  that  a  trial  was  unnecssary — have  sent  their  Com- 
mittee to  prevent  it — have  actually  succeeded  in  preventing  it?  Pll 
do  nothing  so  utterly  absurd. 

I  disclaim  all  idea  of  distrust  as  to  the  motives  of  the  mover,  and  of 
the  sincerity  of  the  gentleman ;  but  his  resolution  is,  in  effect,  an  un- 


43 

conditional  censure.  It  is  worse  than  that.  It's  an  absurdity — a 
self  stultification. 

I  have  heard  much  from  a  venerable  gentleman  herCj  about  the 
Bishop's  character  being  destroyed,  and  a  trial  being  necessary  to  re- 
deem it;  and  nothing  but  his  gray  hairs  prevented  me  from  stopping 
him.  My  character  destroyed  ?  and  the  public  confidence  in  my  in- 
tegrity impaii'ed  ?  I  deny  that.  I  stand  in  the  midst  of  a  Diocese,  I 
can  very  nearly  say,  united  to  a  man.  I  stand  in  the  midst  of  a  Dio- 
cese, in  which  there  is  a  tide  of  sentiment  in  my  favor,  which  is  over- 
whelming. For  the  last  three  months  I  have  received  tokens  of  their 
kindness,  afl'ection,  and  honor — evidence  not  to  be  mistaken,  that  I 
am  welcome  to  tlieir  hearts  and  homes,  more  than  ever  before.  The 
time  has  come  to  stop  these  resolutions,  saying  that  the  fair  fame  of 
the  Bishop  demands  a  trial.  I'll  hear  no  more  about  officers  of  the 
army  and  navy,  and  what  they  do.  I  am  an  officer  myself — of 
Christ's  army — of  the  Church  militant  here  on  earth ;  and  know  and 
feel  what  I  ought  to  do.  This  mode  of  personal  discussion  and  per- 
sonal reflection  here — I'll  put  up  with  it  no  longer.  I  challenge  de- 
nial of  any  thing  that  I  have  said.  I  challenge  any  man  to  put  his 
finger  upon  the  smallest  fraction  of  error  in  my  estimate  of  my  posi- 
tion, and  of  what  my  own  fair  fame  demands.  I  defy  the  proofs  to 
the  contrary.  I  deny  that  there  is  any  want  of  confidence  in  me.  If 
I  had  not  in  my  possession  piles  of  letters,,  from  men  in  every  part  of 
the  United  States,  and  from  multitudes  beyond  the  limits  of  this  coun- 
try, v>  hose  names  are  virtue  and  honor,  expressing  their  sympathy  and 
confidence,  I  might  think  otherwise.  [TAe  Bishops  concluding  re- 
mark here,  and  something  said  by  Mr.  Halsted  in  reply  to  it,  icere  not 
un  derstood  by  the  Reporter  ] 

Mr.  C.  Parker — If  I  were  disposed  to  say  what  many  men  in  the 
same  situation  would,  it  would  be,  Sir,  that  you  seemed  to  think  you 
were  consecrated  Bishop,  and  made  President  of  this  Convention,  for 
the  purpose  of  having  us  do  and  say  just  what  you  reg«rd  as  right,  and 
nothing  else.  1  have  moved  this  resolution,  not  with  the  expectation 
of  its  being  carried,  but  with  the  simple  and  solitary  object  of  having 
a  vote  taken  which  should  fairly  and  fully  express  the  sentiments  of 
myself  and  of  those  who  think  with  me  in  the  Diocese.  But  it  seems, 
Mr.  President,  that  though  it  be  right  and  proper  in  this  Convention 
to  resolve  that  this  Committee  shall  go  for  the  purpose  of  submitting 
to  the  Court  of  Bishops,  assembled  under  the  Canon,  whether  it  be 
just  or  right,  or  for  the  peace  of  God's  Church,  to  go  on  with  the  trial 
— that  it  is  not  right  or  proper,  and  by  no  means  to  be  permitted — 
that  this  i  'onvention  sh;dl  entertain  a  resolution  to  the  contrary.  That 
seems  to  be  the  conclu  ion  of  the  whole  matter.  This  is  the  real  po- 
sition of  the  Bishop,  and  of  the  majority  of  this  Convention. 

Judge  Ogden — I  would  ask  the  gentleman  who  has  just  taken  his 
seat,  How,  at  this  time,  can  the  trial  of  the  Bishop  go  on?  Where 
is  the  Court  which  is  to  try  him  ? 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  said  by  the  three  Bishops,  that  the}'  are  pre- 
pared to  prove,  fully  and  conclusively  to  establish  their  charges.  But  the 
House  of  Bishops,  rightly  regarding  the  rights  of  the  Diocese,  have 
decided  that  this  Convention  is  the  proper  body,  and  that  the  Diocese 
should  settle  it.     They  have  allotted  to  this  Convention  which  has  de- 


44 

cided  upon  the  first  charges,  that  this  Convention  now  assembled  in 
its  special  session,  should  investigate  the  new  charges.  That  this  may 
be  done,  it  is  proposed  that  a  Committee  should  now  be  appointed  to 
take  charge  of  this  business  ;  and  it  is  proposed  to  appoint  the  old 
Committee,  which  I  am  in  favor  of.  But  no  matter  who  they  are,  this 
Committee.'  You  appoint  A.,  B.  and  C,  and  append  to  their  appoint- 
ment authority  to  fill  up  any  vacancy,  in  order  to  have  a  quorum. 

But,  the  witnesses,  they  say,  will  not  go  before  this  Committee  to 
testify  ;  and  how  is  this  Committee  to  investigate  ?  Is  that  the  way 
to  bring  charges  against  the  Head  of  a  Diocese?  They  sa}'  it  is  not 
invested  with  competent  authoiity  to  try  charges,  this  Convention. 
Is  it  not  the  same  Convention  which  tried  the  charges  before  ?  And 
has  not  the  House  of  Bishops  decided  that  the  action  ot  this  Conven- 
tion was  sufficient  ? 

The  gentleman  from  Trenton  says  he  cannot  go  before  this  Com- 
mittee, where  he  was  summoned  formerly,  because  the  charges  had 
been  presented  by  those  Bishops,  and  that  the  course  taken  by  the 
Convention  in  appointing  the  Committee  was  contrary  to  the  Canons 
and  Constitution  of  the  Church.  But  he  is  now  told  that  the  House 
of  Bishops  has  decided  that  it  was  right.  And  then  he  changes  his 
grammar,  and  says  that  we  ought  to  leave  off  the  old  Committee  and 
appoint  a  new  set  of  men  who  will  make  an  impartial  investigation. 
What  becomes  of  the  constitutional  question  in  his  mind  ?  It  is  not 
deniable — it  is  perfectly  plain — that  this  proposed  investigation  of  the 
charges  by  this  Convention,  in  order  that  they  should  be  settled,  is 
right  and  proper,  and  that  it  is  the  only  true  course  to  be  pursued. 
\_lSeveral  sentences  of  the  speaker  here  could  not  be  understood.^ 

In  appointing  this  Committee,  I  never  will  yield,  tliat  these  gentle- 
men who  have  done  their  duty  so  well,  shall  be  left  off".  [There  were 
several  further  remarks,  which  the  Reporter  was  unable  to  note-^ 

Hon.  James  Parker — The  gentleman  last  up  has  been  arguing  a 
question  which  was  not  before  us  ;  and  for  myself,  I  have  no  objection 
to  the  gentlemen  composing  the  old  Committee  being  again  entrusted 
with  this  business.  All  I  said  before  was,  that  they  had  not  examined 
the  principal  witnesses.  It  was  their  misfortune,  not  their  fault ;  and 
if  they  are  to  act  again,  they  ought  to  endeavor  to  examine  the  wit- 
nesses against,  as  well  as  those  for  the  Bishop. 

But,  Sir,  I  do  not  rise  for  that  purpose.  I  rise,  Sir,  in  behalf  of 
those  whom  I  represent,  to  protest  against  the  tyrannical  conduct  of 
the  Bishop.  The  Bishop  has  not  the  authority  to  stop  debate  ;  I  pro- 
test against  his  assumption  of  it.  You  have  destroyed  the  freedom 
of  debate.  Sir.  You  refused  to  put  a  question  offered  by  the  gentle- 
man before  me — interrupted  him  in  his  remarks — and  nothing.  Sir, 
but  my  gray  hairs,  it  seems,  excused  me  from  like  interruption.  ^  ou 
may  consider  me,  for  that  matter,  as  young  as  you  please.  Anybody 
that  came  in  and  saw  the  Bishop  speaking,  would  have  thought  him 
excited  by  something  very  uncommon.  I  protest  against  this  attempt 
to  arrest  debate. 

I  have  said  it  before,  and  I  say  it  again,  that  the  Convention  has 
taken  the  wrong  course  to  settle  this  question  ;  and  the  more  you 
evade  the  canonical  trial,  the  more  you  admit  that  there  is  something 
wrong  which  you  are  ashamed  to  show,  and  afraid  to  have  heard.     I 


45 

do  protest  against  this  authority  which  the  Bishop  assumes^  of  stop- 
ping debate. 

Mr,  Halsted — Now,  I  have  an  amendment  to  move ;  and  my 
amendment  is,  that  the  Committee  to  be  appointed  are  to  examine  all 
charges  against  the  Bishop,  and  any  additional  ones  that  may  be  made. 
I  have  a  charge,  and  it  is  one  which  the  three  Bishops  refused  to  adopt ; 
and  I  appeal  to  every  man  in  this  house  if  the  charge  is  not  correct. 
The  charge  is  this  ?  His  conduct,  while  presiding  over  the  Convention 
in  this  Diocese,  has  been  discourteous,  overbearing  and  tj'rannical — 
wholly  destitute  of  that  propriety  which  should  belong  to  a  christian 
Bishop.  I  want  to  present  that  charge.  For  when  resolutions  have 
been  respectfully  offered  to  this  Convention,  that  he  should  take  upon 
himself  to  say,  he  will  not  put  them — it  ought  not  to  be  tolerated  by 
the  Church. 

A  motion  to  adjourn  was  here  put  and  defeated. 

Amid  much  confusion,  and  cries  of  "question"  and  "order"  all 
over  the  house,  Rev.  Mr.  Sherman  took  the  floor,  but  could  not  pro- 
ceed  on  account  of  the  noise. 

Mr.  James  Parker — I  move.  Sir,  that  the  Bishop  is  out  of  order. 
You  are  as  disorderly  a  man  as  any  body  in  this  Convention. 

Rev.  Mr.  Patersox — I  would  ask  the  President  if  there  is  no  way 
to  have  order. 

Mr.  Rutherfurd — No,  Mr.  Paterson  ;  they  wish  to  press  the  gag- 
law  in  a  christian  Convention.  [Confusion,  and  cries  of  "order"  and 
"question." 

Rev.  Mr.  Sherma^t — I  have  had  the  floor  now  some  time ;  but  I 
don't  see  much  chance  for  the  privilege  which  1  supposed  attached  to 
it.  However,  I'm  pretty  much  disposed  to  keep  good-natured,  and  hold 
on,  and  when  the  noise  is  over,  I  shall  proceed. 

Rev.  Mr.  Dunn — You  can't  be  heard  Sir ;  you  can't  be  heard. 

Mr.  Sherman — Then  FU  speak  louder.  Mr.  President  ! — I  have 
the  floor.  And  now  I  insist  upon  the  President  of  this  Convention 
maintaining  order,  while  I  proceed.  [After  a  brief  pause,  quiet  being 
restored,  Mr.  Sherman  resumed.^ 

The  matter  now  before  the  house,  as  I  understand  it,  is  two-fold — 
the  appointment  of  a  Committee  :  and  a  reference  to  that  Committee 
of  certain  matters — matters,  which  I  maintain  and  urge,  are  not  prop- 
erly before  this  Convention.  Let  me  be  understood  in  this  relation. 
The  charges  or  specifications  mentioned  in  the  proposition  are  not,  as 
I  apprehend,  fairly  before  this  body  for  any  present  action.  No  one 
has  preferred  these  charges  here,  and  nobody  stands  pledged  to  us  to 
substantiate  them.  They  are  the  property  of  those  who  framed  them, 
not  ours.  They  do  not  belong  to  us,  as  subject  matter  at  all.  As  a 
Convention  we  do  not  know  them — they  are  altogether  foreign  and 
extraneous.  If  they  are  within  the  knowledge  of  individual  mem- 
bers, they  are  so  not  from  any  formal  introduction  of  them  here,  but 
solely  from  the  fact  that  they  have  been  seen  outside.  I  submit,  there- 
fore, and  I  press  the  point,  that  the}'  are  subject  matter  which  does 
not  belong  to  this  Convention  at  all.  That  such  or  similar  specific 
charges  have  been  made  before  a  certain  other  body,  by  three  of  the 
Bishops,  I  make  no  question  ;  but  no  party,  as  I  can  learn,  has  pre- 
ferred these  accusations  here.     They  are  not  legitimately  before  us. 


46 

Their  reference,  therefore,  to  a  Committee,  for  investigation,  or  any 
other  action  taken  upon  them  here,  in  the  present  posture  of  the  case, 
is  not  legitimate ;  and  I  again  submit,  can  hardly  be  considered  as 
legal,  or  right,  or  proper. 

However,  waiving  that,  I  go  on  now  to  meet  the  question  as  it 
stands  proposed  in  the  Resolution  entered,  and  shall  rest  upon  other 
and  general  grounds  the  remarks  I  have  to  make. 

I  am  entirely  opposed  to  a  reference  of  these,  or  of  any  other  similar 
matters,  to  the  Committee  of  Investigation  which  sat  formerly  upon 
the  presentment  made  by  the  three  Bishops,  or  to  any  other  Commit- 
tee constituted  as  that  was,  for  these  two  reasons :  First,  Because  I 
do  not  understand  what  object  is  contemplated  by  the  reference. 

It  is  not  avowed  by  the  mover,  nor  even  hinted  in  the  premises  that 
it  is  with  intention  to  the  question  of  presenting  or  not  presenting 
under  the  Canon  of  the  General  Convention ;  and  I  know  not  by 
what  right  this  Convention  can  go  into  inquisition  upon  points  touch- 
ing the  reputation  and  character  of  any  individual  in  its  membership, 
from  the  Bishop  down  to  the  humblest  Presbyter  or  Deacon,  except 
in  direct  and  manifest  connection  with  the  single  question  of  present- 
ment. That  question  has  not  been  raised  nor  avowed  relatively  to 
the  investigation  proposed.  What  the  intention  may  be  I  venture 
not  to  guess.  Judging  from  the  past,  I  might  fairly  infer  that  it  points 
to  any  thing  but  that.  But  I  take  the  proposition  in  th&  shape  in 
which  it  comes  to  me,  and  1  assume  ihis,  as  the  first  ground  of  my 
objection — the  absence  of  any  apparent  object,  as  contemplated  or  in- 
tended to  be  compassed  by  this  proposed  investigation.  There  are 
those,  perhaps,  who  have  been  admitted  behind  the  scenes  in  this  bu- 
siness, who  can  tell  us  what  the  purpose  of  this  action  is.  For  one, 
I  confess  myself  in  the  dark.  And  I  urge  it,  as  a  pertinent  inquiry  at 
this  stage,  which  ought  to  be  somehow  settled  before  proceeding  fur- 
ther— 1  ask  in  all  fairness — What  is  the  real  object  in  instituting  this 
investigation  of  the  charges  alluded  to  ?  Is  it  with  rt- ference  to  the 
simple  question  of  presentment  ?  or  for  what  ?  We  need,  some  of  us 
at  least,  to  be  enlightened  upon  this  point.  It  is  an  important  feature 
of  the  case,  and  I  wonder  it  hps  not  been  remarked  upon  before. 

Rev.  Mn.  Southard — I  would  inform  the  gentleman,  that  the 
Committee  will  recommend  a  presentment  of  the  Bishop,  if  they  find 
occasion  for  it  in  investigating  the  charges.  If  they  find  them  true, 
they  intend  to  so  report  to  the  Convention,  and  the  Convention  can 
then  present,  if  they  choose. 

Rev.  Mr.  Sherman — I  am  glad  to  be  so  informed,  and  from  such 
a  quarter.  Whether  the  Committee  will  Jind  occasion  is  another  point. 
What  has  been  said  b/  the  gentleman  from  Newark  is  by  authority, 
I  suppose ;  and  with  this  assurance  I  rest  my  first  objection,  glad  that 
this  issue  which  was  evaded  when  I  pressed  it  upon  this  gentleman  at 
the  Convention  in  May,  has  at  length  been  met.  I  hope,  if  there  be 
occasion  for  presentment  in  this  account,  the  Committee  who  failed, 
if  they  sought  it,  in  the  former  reference,  may  be  more  fortunate  in 
discovering  it 

But  I  object  to  the  proposed  investigation  on  other  grounds.  I  ob- 
ject to  it,  in  the  second  place,  because  I  am  well  satisfied  that  the 
action  of  any  Committee  of  this  Convention,  not  only  in  regard  to 


47 

those  specifications  which  are  called  "new"  but  in  regard  to  any  and 
all  specifications  charged  by  the  three  Bisho|  s  in  their  presentment — 
I  ara  fully  persuaded  that  the  investigation  of  a  Committee,  acting  as 
they  must,  will  result  in  nothing.  And  as  evidence,  I  point  to  what 
they  have  done  already.  They  have  certainly  done  nothing — except 
to  interpose  what  has  proved  a  bar  in  the  way  of  a  certain  course 
which  had  been  entered  on  under  the  Canon,  to  bring  this  whole  bu- 
siness to  a  final  issue.  They  did  worse  than  nothing.  'I  hey  fur- 
nished to  another  Committee  the  materials  which  have  been  applied 
to  block  the  judicial  progress  of  the  case,  and  throw  it  back  upon  us. 
[Cries  of  "  order" — a  sentence  not  heard-l 

In  one  respect  I  must  be  allowed  to  differ  from  some  with  whom 
upon  the  main  issue  I  agree.  I  would  not  seek  to  cast  undue  reflec- 
tions upon  the  Committee  as  such,  nor  upon  any  of  its  members. 
They  traversed,  as  far  as  they  were  able,  the  ground  which  was  as- 
signed them.  They  were,  as  1  am  fain  to  believe,  honest,  conscien- 
tious, and  sincere  in  what  they  undertook  to  do.  Under  the  peculiar 
circumstances  which  fettered  and  embarrassed  their  proceedings,  they 
did  perhaps  the  best  that  such  a  Committee  could.  And  1  do  believe 
that  the  gentlemen  who  composed  that  Committee  which  served  on  the 
previous  occasion,  would  serve  as  effectively  in  this  behalf  as  any 
others  we  might  choose  to  appoint.  ISut  after  all,  what  can  they  do  ? 
Did  they  effect  any  thing  for  good  in  the  former  case  ?  To  what  did 
their  whole  investigation  then  amount?  After  expending  a  large  share 
of  time  and  labor  in  that  connection,  they  were  only  enabled,  alter  a 
professed  and  intended  traversing  of  the  entire  ground,  they  were  only 
able  to  arrive  at  a  partial  and  imperfect  knowledge  of  the  matters 
charged  and  referred  to  them.  Their  examination  was,  as  from  the 
nature  of  things  it  must  be,  and  as  from  the  nature  of  the  case  it  was, 
ex  parte.  As  evidence  that  a  further  action  by  the  Committee  as  con- 
templated in  the  present  movement,  will  prove  of  no  avail  toward  a 
settlement  of  the  business,  I  refer  you  to  the  former  i.ction  upon  the 
case,  and  would  fix  attention  upon  the  main  fact  of  what  was  the  re- 
sult of  ail  their  labors.  They  report  to  us — what?  That  in  fulfil- 
ment of  their  appointment  they  have  investigate^  all  the  matters  re- 
ferred to  them  by  the  Convention.  And  then  they  go  on  to  tell  us, 
in  summing  up  their  Report,  not  only  that  they  had  not  found  the  al- 
leged matters  true,  but  they  distincly  tell  us  further,  that  they  have 
"disproved"  all  the  charges.  This  is  the  language  of  their  Report: 
all  the  charges  have  been  "  disproved." 

Now,  notwithstanding  that  clear  declaration,  and  as  showing  that 
we  may  not  look  for  conclusive  results  from  the  action  of  this  Com- 
mittee, nor  repose  full  confidence  in  the  conclusions  they  may  reach, 
I  stand  here  in  my  place,  as  a  member  of  this  Convention  and  a  Pres- 
byter of  this  Diocese,  and  say,  upon  my  own  responsibility,  in  the  face 
of  any  and  every  declaration  to  the  contrary,  that  I  know  the  truth — 
yes,  1  know  the  truth  of  several  counts  in  that  indictment,  which  the 
Committee  aver  in  their  Report,  have  been  "disproved."  1  say  it,  not 
as  a  matter  of  opinion,  but  of  fact;  I  k7iow  it— from  testimon  unmis- 
takeable,  which  has  come  into  my  apprehension  through  the  avenues 
of  my    bodily  sense.     [A  few  sentences  not  heard'\ 

Now,  nothing  of  good  is  to  come  from  the  action  of  this  Committee 


48 

to  be  appointed.  Thev  may  enter  with  all  honesty  and  sincerity  of 
purpose  upon  the  task  assigned  them  under  the  Resolution,  should  we 
pass  it.  They  may  use  their  best  efforts  in  the  business,  and  ply  all 
the  available  sources  of  probable  information,  and  3'et  the  whole  of 
their  labor  may  be  in  vain,  and  their  strength  be  spent  for  naught.  It 
proved  so  in  the  former  case,  and  no  real  good  has  grown  out  of  their 
reported  investigation.  Things  still  continue  as  they  were.  The  adop- 
tion of  their  Report  by  the  Convention  has  not  disposed  of  the  pre- 
sentment; for  the  Convention  was  incompetent — it  had  no  judicial 
power.  The  whole  action  thus  far  is  a  signal  failure.  It  has  served 
to  settle  nothing.  It  has  served  to  settle  no  single  thing  as  charged 
in  the  presentment,  nor  to  set  it  aside.  No  jot  or  tittle  of  the  subject 
matter  charged  in  that  indictment  has  passed  away  or  failed  from  the 
account.  It  remains  there,  and  hangs  over  the  accused  Bishop  of 
this  Diocese,  like  a  sword  by  a  hair ;  and  it  will  still  hang  there,  until 
one  of  two  issues  shall  have  been  reached — either  a  withdrawal  of 
that  presentment  by  the  three  Bishops  who  have  made  it,  as  provided 
by  Canon,  or  a  trial  upon  its  merits  by  the  Court  charged  with  its 
final  adjudication.  Neither  of  these  has  taken  place,  and  the  end  is 
not  yet.  And  here  we  are,  in  a  position  any  thing  but  desirable.  And 
I  stand  here  and  say,  that  the  issue  which  has  been  brought  in  by  the 
intervention  of  the  Committee  whose  Report  is  upon  the  table,  has 
served  to  introduce  a  state  of  things  most  sadly  to  be  deplored.  I  re- 
gret that  issue  of  this  business  in  all  its  relations,  and  on  every  ac- 
count. 

It  is  to  be  deplored,  on  account  of  its  relations  to  the  accused.  It 
leaves  him  with  grave  charges  hanging  over  his  head,  several  of  which 
are  known  to  be  true. 

I  deplore  it,  on  account  of  the  Church,  and  especially  on  account 
of  its  bearings  upon  the  Church  in  this  Diocese. 

And  I  deplore  it,  most  of  all,  because  it  fails,  and  must  fail,  to  re- 
store that  confidence,  and  peace  and  harmony,  which  all  should  de- 
sire. 

After  all  that  has  been  done  by  by  our  Committees,  and  all  that 
has  been  undertaken  elsewhere,  the  whole  subject  reverts  to  us  an 
open  question,  and  every  one  is  at  liberty  to  form  and  entertain  his 
own  opinion.  One  sentiment  obtains  here,  and  another  there;  and  in 
every  respect  the  position  we  are  in  is  most  unfortunate. 

How,  then,  are  we  to  escape  from  the  difliiculty?  That  is  the 
question  now.  Can  any  further  action  ou  our  part — can  any  further 
reference  to  a  Committee,  or  any  action  taken  on  their  part,  or  pro- 
posed by  them,  better  our  position  and  relieve  the  case  ?  I  think  not. 
Judging  from  what  has  been,  I  utterly  distrust  any  and  all  action  of 
that  sort.  It  has  only  operated  to  make  bad  worse,  with  every  step 
in  its  progress  ;  and  I  am  therefore  opposed  to  the  entire  scope  of  the 
Resolution.  I  object  to  the  appointment  of  this  Committee,  because 
I  see  no  good  that  will  come  from  its  action.  If  there  were  any  more 
probable  result  for  good  to  come  of  it,  any  thing  to  be  really  gained, 
I  would  waive  my  objections  at  once,  and  readily  accede  to  that  which 
seems  to  be  the  prevalent  sentiment  in  the  Convention — that  the 
charges  alluded  to  (but  not  properly  before  us,  for  I  would  still  urge 
that,)  should  be  referred  to  the  Committee ;  and  that  the  whole  matter 


49 

should  be  adjudicated  by  the  subsequent  decision  upon  it  of  this 
Convention.  But  no  such  issue  as  that  can  settle  the  business,  or  be 
received  as  satisfactory  ;  because  the  decision  of  a  Convention  is 
without  judicial  force,  and  restricted  in  this  relation  to  the  bare  ques- 
tion of  presentment.  Could  it  set  the  impress  of  final  settlement  upon 
charges,  its  action  would  suffice,  and  we  would  submit.  But  it  can- 
not— it  is  powerless  in  this  respect. 

I  can  see  no  ultimate  good,  as  I  said  before,  that  is  to  come  from 
our  further  pursuit  of  already  presented  charges,  or  from  their  refer- 
ence to  a  Committee.  No  real  benefit  can  reasonably  be  expected  to 
accrue  from  it.  As  in  the  former  case,  I  verily  believe  the  Committee 
were  intent  upon  reaching  the  whole  truth  in  regard  of  the  allega- 
tions submitted  to  them,  and  sought  all  available  information  in  the 
premises,  or  at  least  were  ready  to  receive  it,  so  I  am  confident  in 
my  belief,  that  to  the  extent  of  their  ability,  they  would  undertake  an 
impartial  investigation  of  these  additional  charges,  if  referred  to 
them.  I  make  no  question  of  their  integrity  of  motive,  nor  of  their 
honesty  of  purpose  in  this  behalf.  But  after  all,  their  lack  of  knowl- 
edge as  to  the  sources  of  information  whence  the  charges  made  by 
others  had  been  drawn ;  their  neglect  to  go  forth  from  the  seclusion 
of  their  Committee  room,  in  Burlington,  to  seek  and  search  that  they 
might  find;  the  impediments  which  existed  in  several  instances,  and 
which  were  interposed  in  others,  as  bars  upon  their  desired  examina- 
tion of  important  matters  charged  ;  and  the  peculiar  circumstances  in 
which  they  were  placed,  embarrassing  throughout  to  their  free  pro- 
ceeding ;  these  and  other  causes,  combined  with  the  native  difficulties 
of  the  whole  business  to  render  a  strictly  full  investigation  an  almost 
impossibility.  Their  own  manifest  of  the  case,  the  voluminous  Re- 
port of  tha  Committee,  shows  most  clearly  that  the  examination  was 
ex  parte.  A  mere  fraction  of  the  evidence  upon  which  the  present- 
ment rests,  was  all  that  the  Committee  reached.  As  an  investigation, 
it  was  at  the  best  partial  and  imperfect,  and  has  served  to  settle  no- 
thing. 

Such  was  the  result  from  their  former  action.  And  I  see  no  reason 
in  the  nature  of  things  nor  in  any  increased  facilities  for  a  thorough 
and  full  investigation  of  the  matters  now  proposed, — I  cannot  see 
that  the  action  of  a  Committee  will  be  more  successful  now,  than  in 
the  previous  case.  Is  there,  I  ask,  any  more  of  likelihood  that  these 
charges  will  be  conclusively  disposed  of?  This  we  ought  to  well 
consider.     \_A  few  words  not  heard.'\ 

Without  speaking  by  authority,  I  conceive  that  I  have  a  right  to 
venture  an  opinion,  that  those  who  have  already  moved  in  this  matter 
as  presenters,  have  so  fortified  their  position,  and  so  secured  to  them- 
selves the  testimony  upon  which  they  rely,  that  it  may  remain  shut 
up  to  their  use.  Except  in  one  of  them,  (the  last,  I  think  it  is,)  the 
specifications  in  question  contain  no  indications  of  the  testimony. 
The  Committee  may  search  for  it,  but  at  the  same  time,  I  have 
reason  to  believe  that  their  quest  will  be  in  vain. 

And  then  the  Report — that  they  have  examined  the  matters,  and 
have  found  them  all  "disproved" — a  repetition  of  what  they  told  us 
once  before. 

One  word  upon  this  matter  of  "disproval,^'  and  I  will  detain  the 
house  no  longer.  What  are  we  to  understand  by  "disproving"  cer- 
tain charges  ?     The  Committee  in  their  Report  to  the  adjourned  Con- 


50 

vention  in  June,  speak  definitelj;  and  say,  "that  none  of  the  charges 
against  the  Bishop  have  been  sustained."  So  far,  so  well.  But  they 
go  on  to  say,  "that  on  the  contrary,  they  have  been  disproved,  and 
are  not  true."  What  can  they  mean  by  such  singular  use  of  lan- 
guage ?  To  disprove  an  allegation,  I  take  to  be  a  little  different  from 
the  issue  in  point  of  fact  that  it  remains  not  proven.  There  is  a 
manifest  distinction,  and  an  important  difference.  If  the  Committee 
had  simply  said,  that  after  a  diligent  and  careful  examination,  (and 
they  might  as  well  have  written  "partial" — for  such,  by  their  ovv^n 
showing,  it  was,  from  necesslt}^,  though  not  of  choice,)  if  the}'  had 
simply  said,  they  could  arrive  at  no  knowledge  as  to  the  truth  of  the 
matters  charged,  and  stopped  there,  they  would  have  spoken  more  to 
the  point,  and  kept  nearer  to  the  line  of  accuracy.  But  they  have 
compounded  their  account,  and  declare  in  their  Report,  which  has 
gone  upon  the  record  as  adopted  here,  that  all  those  previous  charges 
submitted  to  their  investigation  "have  been  disproved,  and  are  not 
true."  To  prevent  a  second  edition  of  their  error,  I  repeat  in  this 
connection,  that  there  are  several  grave  matters  charged  in  that  in- 
dictment, (charges  with  which  my  name  in  no  wa}'  stands  connected,) 
which  I  know  are  not  disproved,  but  are  still  literally  and  strictly 
true. 

Judge  Ogdex — That  makes  three  times  you've  said  it. 

Mr.  Sherman — And  I  hope  I  am  understood. 

Rev.  Mr.  Southard — I  desire  that  the  principles,  asserted  by  this 
Convention,  should  be  maintained ;  and,  so  far  as  it  is  in  my  power, 
I  would  urge  the  course  adopted,  as  the  rule  of  action  in  this  question 
before  them — the  rule  of  duty,  before  them.  In  the  former  action,  it 
was  regarded  as  an  insidl  to  the  Bishops,  that  the  Diocese  had  the 
exclusive  right  to  act  first  upon  the  charges,  and  decide  the  question 
of  presentment.  It  was  carried  up  to  an  assemjjled  Court;  and  that 
Court  decided  that  we  had  done  right. 

We  are  now  called  on,  not  merely  by  our  sense  of  duty,  but  by  a 
recommendation  of  the  Court  of  Bishops,  to  do  this  thing.  And 
what  is  it  but  an  insult  and  contempt,  to  evade  it  ?  We  are  hound  to 
do  what  has  been  directed  by  this  supreme  authority.  And  yet,  we 
are  told,  that,  when  the  very  Court,  the  authority  to  which  this  refer- 
emce  has  been  made,  have  asked  of  New  Jersey,  and  directed  this 
Convention  to  investigate  these  charges — we  are  told  that,  if  a  Com- 
mittee is  appointed,  the  witnesses,  who  profess  to  know  so  much,  but 
will  be  sure  not  to  tell  it,  will  not  appear.  Yes  ;  we  are  told,  here, 
that  these  witnesses  icill  not  aj)pear. 

What  does  it  mean  ?  Does  it  mean  that  any  man  here,  will  refuse 
to  tell  what  he  knows,  when  tlie  very  authority  which  they  profess  to 
reverence,  says,  "  tell  it  V  Sir,  I  would  like  to  see  the  man,  who  will 
dare,  when  he  has  accused  his  Bishop,  and  affirms  that  he  has  knowl- 
edge, I  would  like  to  see  the  man,  who  dares  to  refuse  his  testimony. 
Let  him  take  that  position  ;  and  he  shall  abide  by  it, 

Mr.  Archer  Gifford — I  wish  to  speak  directly  to  the  point.  I 
feel  it  my  duty  to  submit  to  the  decision  (if  it  may  be  so  termed)  of 
the  House  of  Bishops,  as  one  of  the  constituted  authorities  of  the 
Church.  I  do  so  as  a  lover  of  good  order  and  the  peace  of  society. 
And  yet,  while,  in  the  present  instance,  I  submit  to  this  authority,  or 
this  exercise  of  it,  I  feel  much  as  Galileo  did,  when  compelled  to  ac- 
cuse himself,  on  his  knees,  of  heresy,  because  he  had  advocated  the 


51 

Copernican  system  of  the  planets  revolving  around  the  sun  ;  and  who- 
could  not  help  exclaiming,  when  he  arose,  "  and  yet  it  does  move  !" 

I  cannot  be  satisfied  that  the  Committee  have  kept  within  their 
province,  when  they  attempt  to  join  in  their  Report  of  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  House  of  Bishops,  the  recommendation  of  that  body  to 
this  Convention,  to  execute  a  certain  pledge  that  they  will  proceed  in 
the  investigation  of  the  new  charges  that  have  been  made,  whether 
they  involve  criminality  or  misbehaviour.  This  I  do  not  stop  to  con- 
sider. I  have  never  r»^ad  these  charges  ;  and  I  do  not  profess  to 
know  about  them.  I  have  never  acted  with  any  party.  [A  member 
here  interrupted  the  speaker,  icith  an  allusion  which  teas  unintelligible 
to  the  reporter.^  Some  years  ago,  I  am  ready  to  admit,  I  was  one  of 
a  number  of  gentlemen  who  consulted  together  in  private  as  to 
whether  it  was  not  demanded  by  the  position  of  things,  that  our 
Bishop  should  be  presented.  I  did  not  then  think  it  advisable,  and  I 
so  expressed  my  opinion.  As  there  is  no  pledge  of  secresy  which 
binds  me  in  regard  to  what  took  place  at  that  meeting,  I  might  say 
something  further  respecting  this,  but  I  do  not  think  it  now  necessary 
nor  altogether  in  order.  What  I  would  say  is  this:  I  do  not  wish  to 
be  considered  as  acting  with  any  party.  I  stand  upon  my  own  indi- 
viduality in  this  matter,  and  look  onl}'  upon  what  I  consider  to  be 
the  correct  mode  of  proceeding,  and  without  any  reference  to  the 
guilt  or  innocence  of  the  Bishop.  The  Committee  have  embodied  a 
matter  in  their  Report,  which  the}' were  not  charged  with  by  the  Con- 
vention ;  and  however  I  maj'  feel  bound  to  accept  the  Report  of  the 
Committee,  I  cannot  agree  to  accept  it  with  that  part  included  which 
relates  to  the  pledge  further  to  investigate.  Neither  can  I  believe 
that  the  House  of  Bishops  have  been  constituted  with  any  power  to 
recommend  to  this  Convention  such  a  course.  Their  business  was 
and  is  to  try.  This  Convention  can  only  present.  These  last 
charges  are  before  the  House  of  Bishops  on  a  presentment  made  by 
three  of  the  Bishops,  according  to  the  Canon.  And  what  power  can 
they  have,  to  recommend  to  us,  to  do  what  it  is  their  peculiar  duty  to 
perform,  as  directed  by  the  Canon  ? 

As  to  the  appointment  of  the  same  Committee,  there  would  ap- 
pear to  be  some  indelicacy,  in  committing  another  and  distinct  set  of 
charges  to  them  for  investigation  ;  especially  if  they  are  to  proceed 
as  they  have  done  with  the  first  charges.  They  have  acted  the  part 
of  a  jury  to  try ;  and,  (to  use  their  own  language,)  "found  a  ver- 
dict." For  this  they  had  no  commission.  And  now,  as  it  were, 
without  going  out  of  the  jury-box,  they  are  to  proceed  upon  an  un- 
authorized recommendation  of  the  Bishops — one  for  which  no  prece- 
dent or  direction  can  be  found — and  as  it  weie  feared  to  select  any 
other  men  with  whom  to  trust  our  Bishop's  character.  Whatever  re- 
spect we  may  entertain  for  these  gentlemen  of  the  Committee,  it 
may  be  looked  on  with  suspicion.  The  public  have  to  be  satisfied. 
That  is  the^great  ordeal  at  last ;  and  we  must  act  with  proper  defer- 
ence to  it.  But  I  have  taken  up  more  time  than  I  intended,  and  I 
submit  the  matter  to  the  good  sense  of  the  Convention. 

The  Bishop — The  question  will  now  be  taken  upon  the  reaolution 
moved  by  the  gentleman  from  Elizabethtown.  The  proposed  amend- 
ment  having  been  withdrawn,  it  stands  now  as  it  was  originally  ofFeredj 
including  the  names  of  the  old  Committee.  ' 

The  resolution  was  then  read,  aa  follows : 


52 

"  Resolved,  That  the  new  matters  contained  in  the  presentment 
read  before  that  Court,  be  referred  to  James  Potter,  J.  H.  Wakefield, 
C.  M.  Barker,  D.  B.  Ryall,T.  H.  Whitney,  Henry  McFarlan  and  J. 
L.  McKnight,  with  instructions  to  proceed  with  diligence  and  with 
all  convenient  dispatch,  to  make  a  full  investigation  of  the  new  mat- 
ters contained  in  the  paper  aforesaid,  and  that  thdy  report  to  this 
Convention." 

Hon.  James  Parker — I  move  to  amend  it.  Sir,  by  adding,  after 
what  is  said  in  reference  to  "  the  new  matters" — and  all  other  mat- 
ters which  were  not  examined  in  the  first  presentment. 

Mr.  Halsteu — I  second  that  amendment.  [Some  further  remarks 
were  made  by  Mr.  H.,  and  hy  another  member,  which  could  not  be 
heard  amid  the  confusion.^ 

Mr.  Parker — My  amendment,  as  written,  reads — ■  , 

"  And  also  all  other  matters  in  the  last  presentment,  not  already 
examined  into  by  that  Committee." 

The  yeas  and  nays  being  called  for  on  adopting  the  proposed 
amendment,  the  Secretary  called  the  roll  by  orders.  The  result  was 
as  follows : 

Of  the  Clergy— Aye,  0  ;  No,  21 ;  Declined,  2. 

Of  the  Laky— Aye,  8  ;  No,  21. 

Mr.  Halsted — I  did  not  fully  understand  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Amboy ;  it  did  n't  go  far  enough;  and  I  now  offer 
the  following : 

"And,  also,  all  other  charges  which  shall  be  presented  to  said  Com- 
mittee by  any  responsible  person." 

I  move  this  as  an  amendment, 

Mr.  Thompson — Has  not  the  motion  just  put  by  the  Bishop  set- 
tled the  question,  that  a  large  majority  (if  I  understand  the  vote)  are 
in  favor  of  the  resolution  as  proposed  ?  This  is  the  view  I  take  of  it. 
And  besides,  the  preamble,  which  contains  the  decision  of  the  Court 
under  which  we  are  called  upon  to  act,  only  specifies  certain  particu- 
lar points.  It  is  in  relation  to  the  four  charges  which  have  not  been 
investigated,  and  nothing  else. 

Mr.  J.  W.  CoNDiT — The  amendment  is  not  in  order  ;  for  this  is 
not  a  Special  Convention,  and  it  is  not  according  to  the  call  of  the 
Bishop.     It  is  out  of  order. 

Mr.  Halsted — I  don't  want  to  press  it,  if  the  Convention  is  set  on 
having  another  investigation  of  charges  against  the  Bishop.  They 
have  appointed  the  Committee,  to  suit  themselves,  and  have  taken  good 
care  not  to  put  any  of  the  minority  in  the  Convention  on  it,  lest  they 
should  not  have  everything  their  own  way. 

Mr.  Ryall — We  could  not  appoint  you.  The  gentleman  is  dis- 
qualified, because  he  is  one  of  the  Trustees  of  the  College.  The 
gentleman  ought  to  be  consistent. 

[Some  few  words  were  added  by  Mr.  Halsted,  which,  amid  cries  of 
"  question,"  were  not  understood.'] 

The  Bishop — The  vote  will  now  be  taken  upon  the  original  mo- 
tion. 

The  question  was  taken  viva  voce,  and  declared  by  the  Chair  to  be 
carried  by  sound. 

Mr.  Cortlandt  Parker — Mr.  President,  upon  what  are  we 
voting  ? 

The  Bishop — On  the  resolutioD. 


53 

Mr.  Parker — I  was  not  aware  of  that.  I  thought  the  vote  was 
on  the  amendment  last  offered.  I  did  not  understand  it  to  be  with- 
drawn. 

The  Bishop — The  amendment  was  not  in  order.  The  question 
was  upon  adopting  the  resolution,  and  was  so  announced. 

Mr.  Parker — I  did  not  understand  it.  And  I  wish  the  privilege  of 
recording  my  vote  on  the  resolution,  and  therefore  call  for  a  division 
and  the  Ayes  and  Noes. 

Several  Members — It  is  too  late ;  it  is  too  late ! 

Rev,  Mr.  Southard — Better  take  the  Noes  without  the  Ayes,  if 
we  take  them  at  all. 

Mr.  Parker — The  Noes  without  the  Ayes  !  A  fair  proposition, 
truly  !  Well  done  for  you,  Sir — the  canonical,  legal  expounder  here 
— who  will  have  everything  done  in  strict  accordance  with  law  and 
canon  !  Now  you  wish  the  vote  taken,  if  at  all,  by  the  canonical 
mode  of  only  showing  the  strength  of  one  side.  And  you  oppose 
taking  the  vote  at  all  !  I  should  like  to  know  if  the  minority  in  this 
Convention  are  to  be  accorded  any  rights — if  even  the  poor  right  of 
exhibiting  their  vote  is  to  be  accorded  them. 

Rev.  Mr.  Southard — So  far  from  not  according  to  the  minority 
their  rights,  the  majority  of  this  Convention  have  ghown  the  utmost 
generosity  to  the  minority.  Have  we  not  listened.  Sir,  in  patience, 
these  six  hours,  to  the  speeches  of  the  minority — this  tiresome,  use- 
less, prosy  discussion  ?  And  now  the  minority  complain  that  their 
rights  are  denied  them  ! 

Mr.  C.  Parker. — Well  done.  Sir,  again  !  Well  done  !  this  com- 
plaint about  losing  time,  from  a  gentleman  who  has  the  idea  that  he 
argues  his  case  with  such  consummate  ability,  that  he  must  inflict  on 
this  Convention,  as  he  did  this  morning,  a  two  hours  reading  of  his 
long  mis-called  argument  before  the  Court  of  Bishops — a  paper  long 
ago  printed  and  in  the  hands,  in  common  with  the  public,  of  every 
person  in  this  house.  Well  done!  to  talk  of  generosity  to  the  minori- 
ty, when  we  stand  upon  this  floor  with  the  right  of  speech — a  right, 
as  good  as  that  of  any  man  living,  in  whatever  relation. 

I  say  that  the  minority  of  this  Convention  are  not  accorded  their 
rights,  if  the  course  proposed  be  pursued,  and  I  ask  whether  this  right 
of  recording  our  vote  when  we  misapprehended  the  question  taken,  is 
to  be  denied  to  us  ? 

Hon.  Mr.  Milltr — I  should  like  to  know  what  right  the  gentle- 
man has  ?  The  question  has  been  taken,  and  the  vote  is  declared. 
He  has  no  right  now,  to  a  vote  by  Orders. 

Mr.  Parker — I  ask  the  gentlemen,  whether,  in  the  distinguished 
body  of  which  ho  is  a  member,  if  a  senator,  immediately  upon  the 
declaration  of  a  vote,  asserts  that  he  misapprehended  the  question 
voted  upon,  and  asks  a  division,  or  the  privilege  of  declaring  his  vote, 
Will  it  be  denied  him  ? 

Mr.  Miller — Certainly,  Sir,  it  is  every  day's  practice. 

Mr.  Parker— I  have  a  better  opinion  of  the  courtesy  of  the  Senate. 

After  some  more  remarks  from  Mr.  Miller,  the  question  was  taken 
by  orders,  with  the  following  result:  of  the  Clergy,  aye,  23  ;  no,  0; 
declined,  3:  of  the  Laity,  aye,  21  ;  no,  8;  divided,  1. 

The  Bishop. — The  second  of  the  Resolutions  is  now  the  question 
in  order. 

A  Member — Let  us  know  what  it  is.     I  don't  know  what  the 


54 

second  Resolution  is  about.  Why  isn't  it  read,  as  is  customary  in 
such  cases  ?     iCries  of  "  question."^ 

The  second  part  of  the  Resolutions  was  read,  as  follows : 

"Resolved,  That  the  Committee  have  power  to  fill  any  vacancy  oc- 
curring among  its  members." 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  called,  and  resulted  as  follows :  of  the 
Clergy,  aye,  24  ;  no,  3  ;  declined,  1  :  of  the  Laity,  aye,  22 ;  no,  7. 

Mr.  Ciietwood — The  question  having  been  carried  on  the  second 
resolution,  I  suppose  the  other  is  now  in  order. 

The  Bishop — It  is  moved,  That  when  this  Convention  adjourns, 
they  adjourn  to  meet  in  this  place,  at  10  o'clock,  a.  m.,  on  the  1st  day 
of  December  next. 

The  Secretary  moved  to  amend,  by  substituting  "  in  St.  Mary's 
Church,  Burlington."  The  Resolution  as  amended,  was  then  put  and 
carried  viva  voce. 

Mr.  J.  J.  Chetwood — I  think  I  have  the  privilege  of  correcting  a 
false  statement  which  has  gone  forth  through  the  press,  which  reflects 
both  upon  me  and  this  Convention.  I  wish  to  read  an  article  in  the 
Episcopal  Recorder — the  Police  Gazette  of  the  Church.  I  refer  to  the 
number  of  that  paper  in  which  is  the  following — [Mr.  C.  here  read  an 
article  from  some  paper, '\ 

I  now,  upon  my  own  free  motion,  say  that  this  is  untrue.  I  never 
made  any  arrangement — never  understood  any  arrangement — and 
knew  nothing  of  what  is  here  stated.  I  remained  here,  and  voted,  as 
it  is  put  in  the  journal.  I  pronounce  that  article  is  every  word  of  it 
false. 

Rev.  Mr.  Sheumax — Don't  let  the  amiable  gentleman  from  Eliza- 
bethtown  be  too  fast.  In  what  relates  to  himself,  he  may  settle  his 
own  affairs  in  any  way  he  chooses.  But  he  goes  too  far;  for  there  is 
truth  in  the  statements  made  in  that  article,  and  I  call  upon  the  Rev. 
iMr.  Rose,  whose  name  is  recorded  as  having  voted,  to  say  whether  he 
was  not  at  the  time  at  home  in  his  bed.  He  has  said  so,  and  will  con- 
firm the  statement  if  he  is  present. 

Mr.  Chetwood — I  believe  I  have  the  person  who  wrote  that  article 
now  under  my  eye ;  and  I  say  that  he  has  been  guilty  of  a  false  and 
malicious  statement. 

Mr.  Sherman — If  the  gentleman  refers  to  me  in  his  remark,  I  beg 
leave  to  say  that  he  may  believe  what  he  chooses ;  but  I  suppose  i 
know  a  little  about  this.  I  have  not  avowed  myself  as  the  author  of 
the  article  in  question,  nor  do  I  intend  to  assume  responsibility  for  it. 
The  gentleman  is  guessing,  after  all,  if  he  attributes  the  thing  to  me. 

Mr.  Chetwood — You  have  not  disavowed  it. 

Mr.  Sherman — Neither  do  I  intend  to  do  that,  till  I  think  I  have 
proper  occasion  to.  It's  soon  enough  to  fix  it  upon  me  when  I  have 
adopted  its  authorship.  I  wish  it  understood,  and  I  beg  the  gentle- 
man to  observe,  that  1  have  not  acknowledged  the  authorship  of  that 
article.  I  simply  affirm  that  a  certain  statement  it  makes  is  so,  how- 
ever he  may  pronounce  it  to  be  false.  And  I  don't  suppose  it  follows 
as  a  matter  of  course,  because  I  insist  upon  a  certain  fact,  that  all  the 
vagrant  children  of  the  Press,  which  are  not  otherwise  fathered,  are 
to  be  palmed  off  on  me.  Indeed,  I  may  say,  these  matters  are  not  in 
my  line.     [Much  confusion,  and  many  leaving  the  house.^ 

Mr.  Chetwood — 1  have  fixed  this  thing  where  it  belongs,  and 
that's  all  I  wanted.     I  am  satisfied  to  let  it  rest  where  it  is. 


55 

Mr.  Sherman — If  the  gentleman  is  satisfied  with  his  mistake,  very 
well.  He  is  entirely  welcome  to  it,  and  to  anything  else  of  this  sort. 
I  consider  this  whole  matter  as  irregular,  and  I  shall  say  no  more. 

Mr.  Chetwood — I  don't  think  you'd  better;  you'll  get  deeper  in 
the  mire  if  you  do.  [Many  of  the  members  leaving  and  much  noise,  in 
which  the  remaining  words  of  Mr.  C,  were  lo&t.] 

The  House  was  called  to  order,  and  after  the  customary  devotions 
by  the  Bishop,  the  Convention  adjourned  at  about  11  o'clock,  to  meet 
in  St.  Mary's  Church,  Builington,  on  Wednesday,  the  1st  of  December, 
at  10  o'clock  A.M. 


;7l  p  p  e  U  M  i- 


As  reference  is  frequently  made  in  the  foregoing  Report  to 
the  Canon  passed  in  General  Convention,  at  Philadelphia  in 
Oct.  1814,  the  whole  is  here  appended  : 

CANOX  III.    Or  THE  Trial  of  a  Bishop. 
{Theforimr  Canon  on  tliis  ivhject  loas  the  fourth  of  18il.] 

Sectiox  1.  The  trial  of  a  Bishop  shall  be  on  a  Presentment  in  writing,  specifying 
the  offense  of  which  he  is  alleged  to  be  guilt)-,  with  reasonable  certainty  as  to  time, 
place,  and  circnmstances.  Such  Presentment  may  be  made  for  any  Crime  or  Immo- 
rality, for  Heresy,  for  Violation  of  the  Constitution  or  Canons  of  this  Church,  or  of 
the  Church  in  the  Diocese  to  which  he  belongs.  Said  Presentment  may  be  made  by 
the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  to  which  the  accused  Bishop  belongs,  two-thirds  of  eacli 
order  present  concurring :  FrovideJ,  that  two-thirds  of  the  Clergy  entitled  to  seats  iu 
said  Convention  be  present :  and  Pivvided  also,  that  two-thirds  of  the  Parishes  cauon- 
ically  in  union  with  said  Convention  be  represented  therein;  and  the  vote  thereon 
shall  not  in  any  case  take  place  on  the  same  day  on  which  the  resolution  to  Present  is 
offered;  and  it  may  also  be  made  b}-  any  three  Bishops  of  this  Church.  When  made 
by  the  Convention,  it  shall  be  signed  by  a  Committee  of  Prosecution,  consisting  of 
three  Clergymen  and  three  laymen,  to  be  appointed  for  that  purpose;  and  when  b}' 
three  Bishops,  it  shall  be  signed  by  them  respectively,  in  their  official  characters. 

Sectiox  2.  Such  Presentment  shall  be  addressed  "  To  the  Bishops  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,"  and  shall  be  delivered  to  the  Presiding 
Bishop,  who  shall  send  copies  thereof  without  delay  to  the  several  Bishops  of  this 
Church'then  being  within  tLie  territory  of  the  United  States :  Provided,  that  if  the  Pre- 
sentment be  made  by  three  Bishops,  no  copies  shall  be  sent  to  them  ;  and  Provided  fur- 
ther, that  if  the  Presiding  Bishop  be  the  subject  of  the  Piesentment,  or  if  he  be  one  of 
the  three  Bishops  presenting,  such  Presentment  shall  be  delivered  to  the  Bishop  next  in 
senioritj',  the  same  not  being  one  of  the  three  presenting;  whose  duty  it  shall  be,  in 
such  case,  to  perform  all  the  duties  enjoined  by  this  Canon  on  the  Presiding  Bishop. 
Upon  a  Presentment  made  in  either  of  the  modes  pointed  out  iu  Section  1,  of  this 
Canon,  the  course  of  proceeding  shall  be  as  follows: 

Section  3.  The  Presiding  Bishop  shall,  without  delay,  cause  a  copy  of  the  Present- 
ment to  be  served  on  the  accused,  and  shall  give  notice,  with  all  convenient  speed,  to 
the  several  Bishops  then  being  within  the  territory  of  the  United  States,  appointing  a 
time  and  place  for  their  assembling  together ;  and  any  number  thereof,  iDcing  not  less 
than  seven,  other  than  the  Bishops  presenting,  then  and  there  assembled,*shall  consti- 
tute the  Court  for  the  trial  of  the  accused :  he  shall  also,  at  the  same  time,  cause  at 
least  thirty  days'  notice  of  the  time  and  place  of  meeting  to  be  given,  both  to  the  ac- 
cused, and  to  the  parties  presenting  him,  by  a  Summoner  to  be  appointed  by  him; 
and  shall  also  call  on  the  accused  by  a  written  summons  to  appear  and  answer.     The 

?lace  of  trial  shall  alwayij  be  within  the  Diocese  iu  which  the  accused  Bishop  resides, 
f  the  accused  Bishop  appear,  before  proceeding  to  trial  he  shall  be  called  on  b}^  the 
Court  to  say  whether  he  is  guilty  or  not  guilty  of  the  offense  or  offenses  charged 
against  him;  and  on  his  neglect  or  refusal,  the  plea  oi not  fjuiliy  shall  be  entered  for 
him,  and  the  trial  shall  proceed :  Provided,  that,  for  sufficient  cause,  the  Court  may 
adjourn  from  time  time ;  and  Provided  also,  that  the  accused  shall  at  all  times  duringf 
the  trial  have  liberty  to  be  present,  to  produce  his  testimony,  and  to  make  his  defense. 
Section  4.  When  the  Court  proceeds  to  trial,  some  officer  authorized  by  law  to  ad- 
minister oaths,  may,  at  the  desire  of  either  party,  be  requested  to  administer  an  oath 


5G 

or  affirmation  to  the  witnesses,  that  they  will  testify  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and 
nothing  but  the  truth,  concerning  the  matters  charged  in  the  Presentment,  and  the 
testimony  of  each  witness  shall  be  reduced  to  writing.  And  in  case  the  testimony 
of  any  witness  whose  atendance  on  the  trial,  cannot  be  obtained,  is  desired,  it  shall  be 
lawful  for  either  parly,  at  any  time  after  notice  of  the  Presentment  is  served  on  the 
accused,  to  apply  to  the  Court,  if  in  session,  or  if  not,  to  any  Bishop,  who  shall  there- 
upon appoint  a  Commissary  to  take  the  deposition  of  such  witness.  And  such  party, 
so  desiring  to  take  the  deposition,  shall  give  to  the  other  party,  or  some  one  of  them, 
reasonable  notice  of  the  time  and  place  of  taking  the  deposition,  accompanying  such 
notice  with  the  interrogatories  to  be  propounded  to  the  witness;  whereupon  it  shall 
be  lawful  for  the  other  party,  within  six  days  after  such  notice,  to  propound  cross-in- 
terrogatories ;  and  such  interrogatories  and  cross-interrogatories  if  any  be  propounded, 
shall  be  sent  to  the  Commissary,  who  shall  thereupon  proceed  to  take  the  testimony 
of  such  witness,  and  transmit  it,  under  seal,  to  the  Court.  But  no  deposition  shall  be 
read  at  the  trial  unless  the  Court  have  reasonable  assurance  that  the  attendance  of 
the  witness  cannot  be  procured,  or  unless  both  parties  shall  consent  that  it  may  be 
read. 

Section  5.  The  Court  having  fully  heard  the  allegations  and  testimony  of  the  par- 
ties, and  deliberately  considered  the  same,  after  the  parties  have  withdrawn,  shall 
declare  respectively,  whether,  in  their  opinion,  the  accused  be  guilty  or  not  guilty  of 
the  charges  and  specifications  contained  in  the  Presentment,  in  the  order  in  which 
they  are  set  forth;  and  the  declaration  of  a  majority  of  the  Court  being  reduced  to 
writing  and  signed  by  those  who  assent  thereto,  shall  be  considered  as  the  judgment 
of  the  said  Court,  and  shall  be  pronounced  in  the  presence  of  the  parties,  if  they  choose 
to  attend.  And  if  it  be  that  the  accused  is  guilty,  the  Court  shall,  at  the  same  time, 
pass  sentence,  and  award  the  penalty  of  Admonition,  Suspension,  or  Deposition,  as  to 
them  the  oflense  or  oflenses  proved  may  seem  to  deserve:  Provided,  that  if  the  ac- 
cused shall,  before  sentence  is  passed,  show  satisfactory  cause  to  induce  a  belief  that 
justice  has  not  been  done,  the  Court,  or  a  majority  of  its  members,  may,  according  to 
a  sound  discretion,  grant  are-hearing:  and  in  either  case,  before  passing  sentence, 
the  accused  shall  have  the  opportunity  of  being  heard,  if  he  have  aught  to  say  in  excuse 
or  palliation :  Provided,  that  the  accused  shall  not  be  held  guilty  unless  a  majority  of 
the  Court  shall  concur,  in  regard  to  one  or  more  of  the  offenses  charged,  and  only  as 
relates  to  those  cbai-ges  in  which  a  majority  so  concur. 

Section  6.  If  the  accused  Bishop  neglect  or  refuse  to  appear,  according  to  the  sum- 
mons of  the  Court,  notice  having  been  served  on  him  as  aforesaid,  except  for  some 
reasonable  cause,  to  be  allowed  by  the  said  Court,  they  shall  pronounce  him  to  be  in 
contumacy  ;  and  sentence  of  Suspension  from  the  Ministry  shall  be  pronounced  against 
him  for  contumacy  by  the  Court;  but  the  said  sentence  shall  be  reversed,  if,  within 
three  calendar  mouths,  he  shall  tender  himself  ready,  and  accordingly  appear,  and 
take  his  trial  on  the  Presentment.  But  if  the  accused  IBishop  shall  not  so  tsnder  him- 
self before  the  expiration  of  the  said  three  mouths,  the  sentence  of  Deposition  from 
the  Ministry  shall  be  pronounced  against  him  by  the  Court.  And  it  shall  be  the  duty 
of  the  Court,  whenever  sentence  has  been  pronounced,  whether  it  be  on  trial  or  for 
contumacy,  to  communicate  such  sentence  to  the  Ecclesiastical  authority  of  every  Di- 
ocese of  this  Church;  and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  said  Ecclesiastical  authorities  to 
cause  such  sentence  to  be  publicly  read  to  the  Congregations  of  each  Diocese  by  the 
respective  Ministers  thereof. 

Section  7.  All  notices  and  papers  contemplated  in  this  Canon,  may  be  served  by  a 
Summoncr  or  Summoners,  to  be  appointed  by  the  Bishop  to  whom  the  Presentment 
is  made,  or  by  the  Court,  when  the  same  is  in  session  ;  and  the  certificate  of  any  such 
Summoner  shall  be  evidence  of  the  due  service  of  a  notice  or  paper.  In  case  of  service 
by  any  other  person,  the  fact  may  be  proved  by  the  affidavit  of  such  person.  The  de- 
livery of  a  written  notice  or  paper  to  a  party,  or  the  leaving  it  at  his  place  of  res- 
idence, shall  be  deemed  a  sufficient  service  of  such  notice  or  paper. 

Section  8.  The  accused  party  may  have  the  privilege  of  appearing  hj  counsel,  and 
in  case  of  the  exercise  of  such  privilege,  but  not  otherwise,  those  presenting  shall  have 
the  like  privilege. 

Section  9.  If  at  any  time,  during  the  session  of  any  General  Convention,  any  Bishop 
shall  make  to  the  House  of  Bishops  a  written  acknowledgment  of  his  unworthiness  or 
criminality jn  any  particular,  the  House  of  Bishops  may  proceed,  without  trial,  to  deter- 
mine by  vote,  whether  the  said  offending  and  confessing  Bishop  shall  be  admonished,  or 
be  suspended  from  his  office,  or  be  deposed ;  and  the  sentence  thus  determined  by  a  ma- 
jority of  the  votes  of  the  House  of  Bishops,  shall  be  pronounced  by  the  Bishop  presiding, 
in  the  presence  of  the  saidHouse  of  Bishops,  and  entered  on  the  Journal  of  the  House, 
and  a  copy  of  the  said  sentence,  attested  by  the  hand  and  seal  of  the  Presiding  Bishop, 
shall  be  sent  to  the  said  Bishop,  and  to  the  Standing  Committee  of  his  Diocese,  and 
to  the  Ecclesiastical  authority  of  every  Diocese  of  this  Church;  and  it  shall  be  the 
duty  of  said  Ecclesiastical  authorities  to  cause  such  sentence,  unless  it  be  the  sentence 
of  admonition,  to  be  publicly  read  to  the  Congregation  of  each  Diocese,  by  the  respect- 
ive Ministers  thereof. 

Section  10.  Any  Bishop  of  this  Church  not  having  Ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  shall 
be  subject  to  Presentment,  trial,  and  sentence,  as  hereinbefore  provided,  but  shall  not 
be  included  in  any  other  provision  of  this  Canon. 

Section  11.  Canon  IV.  of  1841  is  hereby  repealed. 


©AYLORD  BROS.  Inc. 
Syracuse,  N.  Y. 
Slocklon,  Calif. 


BX5960 .D63P97 

A  report  of  the  sayings  and  doings  in 

Princeton  Theological  Semmary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00051    2659 


